More Tall Tales From the Bush Administration

[andyfox]

"If the United States were a true empire, vice president Cheney said, "we would certainly preside over a much greater piece of the earth's surface than we currently do."

This after Cheney said on National Pubic Radio that two trailers discovered after the war contained proof of Iraq's biological weapons programs.

Meanwhile the president said that the weapons search, from which the chief arms inspector resigned, saying that our prewar data was flawed, had proven that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities," an interesting use of linguistic obfuscation, even for a man who does it so often and so well (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not).

This is precisely the way for a political party to lose the White House, against all odds. The Democrats managed to do it in 1968 after winning by a landslide in 1964 and they haven't really recovered since. Meanwhile, another headline says "2 in Iraq Overbilling Are Fired Halliburton Says." The vice-president, of course, said "Halliburton gets unfairly maligned simply because of their past association with me."

John Kerry may start thinking about his cabinet soon.

[adios]

I haven't had a chance to read other threads on your latest replies to my posts. Anyway a quote from Kerry:
John Kerry on Budget & Economy (http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Budget_+_Economy.htm)

Q: Your plan to balance the budget?
KERRY: I'm going to do what Clinton did. I'm going to cut the deficit in half in the first four years. Clinton's plan was to balance the budget in 10 years, not the five Governor Dean says. The reason we decided not to do it in five was because it required extraordinary cuts in the things we just talked about doing investing in the city of Detroit, investing in our schools, investing in health care, making our economy move.

Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003

Bush policy kept economy afloat in recession-keep some of it
GEPHARDT [to Kerry]: [Maintaining any part of the Bush tax plan] is the wrong policy, and let me tell you why. This plan has failed. The president's economic plan has failed. And we should not keep half of a failure or a quarter of a failure. If it's failed, let's change the policy. Let's do something else. We'll go back to the Clinton tax code. I led the fight in 1993 to put those changes in place; it worked. And my plan will give more money to the average family than the Bush tax cuts.
KERRY: Going back to the Clinton tax cuts, doesn't create another job, it puts a burden on current predicament of middle-class Americans. They lose their current revenue. What's kept America's economy moving in the last two and a half years has been consumer spending. If all of a sudden, when we're trying to recover, we sucked a whole lot of money out of those consumers, we are not going to be able to keep the economy moving. It's the wrong policy.

Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan Sep 25, 2003

No excuse for special tax cuts for the rich
Q: How will you balance the budget?
A: The first thing we have to do is to roll back the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Fiscally responsible tax cuts for working families can grow the economy, but there is no excuse for special tax cuts for the rich. Then we can create jobs and invest in our people. With the right economic plan, we can turn our economy around, invest in people and reduce deficits all at the same time.

Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003

Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would increase the amount of the budget that would be used to reduce the national debt by $75 billion over 5 year. The debt reduction would be offset by reducing the tax cut in the budget framework from $150 billion
Bill S Con Res 101 ; vote number 2000-55 on Apr 5, 2000

Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget.
Approval of the 1998 GOP Budget which would cut spending and taxes.
Status: CR Agreed to Y)78; N)22
Reference: H. Con. Res. 84 as amended; Bill H. Con. Res. 84 ; vote number 1997-92 on May 23, 1997

Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment.
Approval of the balanced-budget constitutional amendment.
Status: Joint Resolution Defeated Y)66; N)34
Reference: S. J. Res. 1; Bill S. J. Res. 1 ; vote number 1997-24 on Mar 4, 1997

From the national taxpayers union website:



The Return of Fuzzy Math and Risky Schemes: How Presidential Hopefuls Would Deepen Deficits (http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=548&org_name=NTUF)


Note the following regarding Mr. Kerry and how much he wants to increse the current budget deficit by $265.11 billion. Also note in the article that if all of Bush's 2003 tax cuts were rescinded (something Kerry said he doesn't want to do) it would add at most $135 billion to federal revenues. Note how Kerry would increase the deficit by $265.11 billion:

John Kerry

John Kerry leads the pack of Democratic Presidential candidates in the military/veterans policy category. The Senator's pledge to support veterans' health programs carries a cost of over $41 billion. The bulk of Kerry's spending, however, comes in the form of a $55.9 billion education agenda, an $89.88 billion health care platform, and $31.04 billion in infrastructure improvements.

Included in Kerry's education plan -- the second priciest of the Democratic proposals -- is a $2.25 billion offer of more affordable child care, an expanded Head Start program, and $25 billion in school renovations. The Kerry health care plan allows Americans to buy into the same arrangement offered to Members of Congress -- at a taxpayer cost of $89.5 billion per year. Senator Kerry's infrastructure program entails $31 billion in restored highway funding and $35 million in funding for a high-speed rail programs.

Also not included in this his proposals is to increase the forces in Iraq by 2 whole divisions.

Here's the article:

The Return of Fuzzy Math and Risky Schemes: How Presidential Hopefuls Would Deepen Deficits
NTUF Policy Paper 148
by
Drew Johnson

Jan 19, 2004


Campaign pundits continue to wonder whether Howard Dean's candidacy for President will get the final boost it needs to prevail in this month's key Democratic primaries with former officeseeker Al Gore's recent endorsement.

Yet, Gore's indirect presence in the race also reminds taxpayers of his duels with George W. Bush over fiscal policy in the 2000 Presidential contest. While Gore labeled Bush's tax reduction and Social Security reform plans as "risky schemes," Bush accused his opponent's budget platform of suffering from "fuzzy math." Today, as eight Democrats vie for their party's top nomination, many deficit-conscious Americans may be wondering if such terms are applicable to the 2004 race.

Each of the Democrat contenders for the White House disparaged recent projections of huge budget shortfalls (nearing $500 billion for Fiscal Year 2004) for their own rhetorical purposes. For example, front-runner Howard Dean states he will commit to "set the nation on the path to a balanced budget."[1] For his part, Dick Gephardt recalled that "two short years ago, we were having arguments about what to do with the surplus" and announced that "the President's economic policy has failed."[2]

Joseph Lieberman has accused White House officials of "hiding behind the war and homeland security to excuse their own fiscal irresponsibility,"[3] while John Kerry claims "this Administration has turned fiscal responsibility on its ear."[4] Wesley Clark has declared he "would restore the basic principle of responsibility to the budget process: all tax and spending proposals must be paid for without increasing the deficit."[5]

Despite their different approaches, to a person, the eight Democrat Presidential candidates call for spending increases that would substantially swell the deficit. On average, the candidates' proposals would pile an additional $479 billion onto the federal deficit beyond planned spending (a 21.5 percent increase in the budget).[6]

This Policy Paper systematically examines the fiscal implications of the eight contenders' agendas, using neutral techniques to assign a running cost tally to each budget proposal publicly offered by the candidates.

Highlights include:

Out of over 200 cost-associated proposals offered by the candidates, just two would reduce federal spending.
All candidates offer platforms that call for more spending than would be offset by repealing the Bush tax cut.[7]
Five of the eight candidates' health care spending proposals would cost over $100 billion in the first year alone.
Table 1 depicts the summarized cost data that National Taxpayers Union Foundation calculated for each candidate's platform.

Table 1. New Spending Proposed by Democratic Presidential Candidates

Candidate
Total Proposed Spending Increase (Annual, in Billions)

Sharpton
$1,327.01

Kucinich
$1,060.35

Gephardt
$368.76

Kerry
$265.11

Dean
$222.9

Clark
$220.66

Edwards
$199.48

Lieberman
$169.55

Source: National Taxpayers Union Foundation calculations.


The study relies heavily upon National Taxpayers Union Foundation's BillTally project, a computerized accounting system that has, since 1991, tabulated the cost or savings of every piece of legislation introduced in Congress with a net annual impact of $1 million or more.

Each Appendix following the text of this report includes the various elements of a Presidential candidate's platform, divided into 12 policy areas that could conceivably impact annual federal spending. This section summarizes every candidate's platform and presents figures revealing a reality that strongly contradicts the campaign rhetoric.

Wesley Clark

The costs associated with General Clark's platform are largely a result of an economic stimulus plan that doles out $60 billion to job creation programs and state and local governments over a two-year span, as well as a $55 billion plan to upgrade the electrical grid. The economic/employment policy presented by Clark also funds a new incarnation of AmeriCorps, at a cost of $200 million. Clark's $78.11 billion health care plan, among the least expensive proposed by the candidates, devotes a significant share of tax dollars to non-coverage-related health care improvements.

In addition to Clark's economic, infrastructure, and health care plans, his $5 billion international aid plan is among the largest of any candidate. A $2.17 billion proposed commitment to the military and veterans affairs ranks him third in that category. Clark manages to submit cost-associated policy proposals in all but one of the 12 policy areas considered in this study, a feat matched only by Howard Dean.

Howard Dean

Howard Dean's proposed $223 billion platform places him sixth-highest in terms of overall proposed costs. Despite this middling number, no candidate outspends Dean in an unmatched four different policy categories. Dean heads the field in proposed spending for agriculture/rural, campaigns and elections, civil rights, and international aid. Additionally, Dean offers the second most expensive scheme to address military funding and $105 billion in new health care commitments.

A number of costly policy proposals account for Dean's showing across so many categories. The campaigns and elections plan proposed by Governor Dean includes a "five-to-one" public match for the first $100 of every donation to a federal candidate, more than triple the cost of the next most expensive proposal. A suggested $30 billion contribution towards the global HIV/AIDS effort makes Dean's international aid total more costly than any other candidate by a billion dollars a year. A plan allowing federal employees to name same-sex partners as beneficiaries is, by itself, more expensive than the total proposed spending in the civil rights category of any other candidate. Other major cost-bearing proposals by Dean include $11 billion per year in early childhood education, $6 billion per year for higher education, and a $100 billion job creation fund.

John Edwards

The platform offered by Senator Edwards is, with the exception of Joseph Lieberman, the least costly of the Democratic proposals. That comparatively low cost is, however, deceiving. Edwards ranks among the top three for proposed spending in half of the 12 policy categories. Additionally, Edwards has no federal spending-related proposals in four of the study's 12 policy areas: housing, infrastructure, international aid, and military/veterans. Thus, the Senator is among the three "most expensive" candidates in three-fourths of the categories in which Edwards offers a proposal. A $59 billion health care plan, the lowest level of increase among the candidates, helps to lessen Edwards' overall proposed spending total.

Edwards' homeland security plan is, by nearly $2 billion, the most expensive of the Democratic proposals. The Senator's plan for the economy would earmark over $95 billion for programs such as a dollar-for-dollar matching savings account for working-class households and $40 billion in state aid. Plans granting one year of tuition-free education and doubling investments in teacher training increase the cost of the Edwards platform by an additional $6 billion.

Richard Gephardt

The $369 billion in new spending proposed by Representative Gephardt makes his agenda the costliest of the major contenders. Five of the 12 policy areas depicted in the study for Gephardt are void of cost-associated proposals, and another -- civil rights -- calls for less than $15 million in new spending. The six remaining policy areas feature a $20 billion homeland security trust fund, $5 billion in increased student financial aid, and $42 billion for a pre-school plan.

Further inflating Gephardt's total is the costliest economic plan of any candidate and a sizeable health care program, combining for $234.88 billion in potential spending. Gephardt proposes to supplement his initial $68.87 billion health care plan with an additional $167 billion dedicated to health insurance incentives. Specifically, Gephardt calls for a $109 billion "refundable" (i.e., in excess of actual tax liability) credit to employers who do not currently offer health insurance to their employees and a $58 billion commitment to assist state and local governments in addressing their health insurance burdens.

John Kerry

John Kerry leads the pack of Democratic Presidential candidates in the military/veterans policy category. The Senator's pledge to support veterans' health programs carries a cost of over $41 billion. The bulk of Kerry's spending, however, comes in the form of a $55.9 billion education agenda, an $89.88 billion health care platform, and $31.04 billion in infrastructure improvements.

Included in Kerry's education plan -- the second priciest of the Democratic proposals -- is a $2.25 billion offer of more affordable child care, an expanded Head Start program, and $25 billion in school renovations. The Kerry health care plan allows Americans to buy into the same arrangement offered to Members of Congress -- at a taxpayer cost of $89.5 billion per year. Senator Kerry's infrastructure program entails $31 billion in restored highway funding and $35 million in funding for a high-speed rail programs.

Dennis Kucinich

Representative Kucinich weighs in with the second-costliest policy platform among all the Democratic candidates. Kucinich's $1.06 trillion plan would increase the federal budget by nearly 50 percent.[8] Enacted in full, the Kucinich agenda would increase the federal deficit by over 15 percent in the first year of his Presidency alone.[9]

Among Kucinich's major proposals are a $20 billion-per-year infusion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a $48 billion commitment to tuition-free higher education, a $60 billion universal pre-kindergarten program, and $87 billion for a set of refundable payroll tax credits. A proposed $52.57 billion reduction in Pentagon spending falls far short in offsetting a $500 billion "New Deal"-style public works program intended to update infrastructure, including water and sewer systems and government buildings.

Kucinich's infrastructure plan alone outspends the entire platforms of all but two other candidates and his health care blueprint is as expensive as every policy proposed by candidates Lieberman, Edwards, and Clark combined.

Joseph Lieberman

Of the eight Democratic Presidential candidates, Senator Lieberman has, by about $30 billion, the least cost impact on American taxpayers. However, Lieberman's tendency to frame much of his platform around funding increases and program expansions -- without any specifics as to the amount of increase or breadth of expansion -- prevents accurate cost estimates and thus artificially lowers the Senator's estimated policy costs. In the area of infrastructure, for example, six of the eight candidates support a well-defined program, while Lieberman calls for adequate investment "in the technologies that will secure America's critical infrastructure, such as the power grid, the financial system, air traffic control, and the telecommunications and Internet infrastructure from physical and cyber-attacks."[10] While this undertaking is likely to cost tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars, it is impossible to estimate a cost for such an ambiguous goal.

Of note among the policies included in Lieberman's platform is his $8 billion environmental program -- over 23 percent more costly than that of John Edwards, author of the next most expensive environmental program. A $117 billion health care proposal leaves only Kucinich, Sharpton, and Gephardt with more expensive health care designs. In addition to a $75 billion medical coverage plan, Lieberman calls for $27 billion in new health care research funding and creation of a new $15 billion agency -- the American Center for Cures -- dedicated to developing treatments for threatening diseases.

Lieberman also calls for a $300 tax rebate to the 34 million taxpayers who did not receive a refundable tax credit in 2001. The potential expense of this wealth redistribution disbursement, given in large part to those who pay little or no federal income taxes, tops out at $10.2 billion.

Al Sharpton

Reverend Sharpton plans to address the principal policy issues of concern to his campaign platform not through programs or funding modifications, but rather through a series of Constitutional Amendments. By expanding the powers enumerated by the Constitution, these amendments would grant the federal government increased authority to create additional programs and enact previously unlawful policies. Thus, areas of political oversight once unavailable to the government would fall under federal control, at taxpayer expense, following the passage of new amendments. Of course, ratification of a Constitutional Amendment is subject to a supermajority vote of both Houses of Congress and approval of the legislatures of 38 states.

Despite tendering very few proposals bearing a direct cost -- only two of the 12 policy areas within the study contain cost-associated suggestions -- Sharpton still manages the most expensive platform among the Democratic Presidential candidates. The large price tag associated with Sharpton's plan is mainly due to his proposal for a universal, single-payer health plan, which totals $1.32 trillion. Sharpton calls for a five-year, $250 billion infrastructure redevelopment plan, as well.

Conclusion

Despite all the hand-wringing about George W. Bush's recent tax cuts, the spending column trips up every one of these candidates. Each would increase spending by substantially more than the supposed increase in federal revenues resulting from overturning the Bush tax cut. The candidates' fiscal policies would necessarily result in greater tax hikes, a deeper deficit, or both. This study does not consider that the temptation to spend even more money can be much greater after entering the White House. Consider President Bush, who, after campaigning as a fiscal conservative, has seen federal spending increase by 23.7 percent since taking office.[11] Even the most parsimonious of the eight Democratic candidates for President eclipses that total by over 15 percent.[12]

The budget cannot possibly be balanced with such astronomical increases in government expenditures as those proposed by the Democratic Presidential candidates. Unless the candidates change their stance on spending, any talk of balanced budgets and decreasing deficits, or criticism of another candidate for their budgetary policy, is little more than a disguise to cover the budgetary hole they plan to dig deeper still -- and American taxpayers will bear the burden of climbing out.

About the Author

Drew Johnson is a Policy Analyst for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (www.ntu.org). NTUF is the research arm of the National Taxpayers Union, a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in 1969 to work for lower taxes, less wasteful spending, and accountable government at all levels.

Research assistance was provided by Jeff Dircksen, Director of Congressional Analysis, National Taxpayers Union Foundation and Demian Brady, Senior Policy Analyst, National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

Notes

[1] Statement from candidate's website, www.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/ (http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/) index.html?type=page&pagename=policy_statement_eco nomy.

[2] Remarks at debate in Iowa, May 17, 2003, cited at www.ontheissues.org/House/ (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/) Dick_Gephardt_Budget_+_Economy.htm.

[3] Quoted in James G. Lakely, "Deficit Blamed on Economy, Iraq War," Washington Times, July 16, 2003; www.washtimes.com/national/20030715-114936-3973r.htm. (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030715-114936-3973r.htm.)

[4] Statement from candidate's website, www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0715.html. (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0715.html.)

[5] Statement from candidate's website, www.clark04.com/issues/economicplan/. (http://www.clark04.com/issues/economicplan/.)

[6] www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf.)

[7] Even by liberal (generous) estimates, the projected federal revenue reduction in 2004 as a result of the 2003 tax cuts is $135 billion; www.cbpp.org/6-4-03tax.htm. (http://www.cbpp.org/6-4-03tax.htm.)

[8] Based on Fiscal Year 2003 information found at: www.house.gov/budget/04markkeyfacts.htm. (http://www.house.gov/budget/04markkeyfacts.htm.)

[9] Based on information current as of 1/7/2004; www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm. (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm.)

[10] www.joe2004.com. (http://www.joe2004.com.)

[11] http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/market/bizstori2003/ 120603spending_bush_2003.shtml.

[12] Based on one-year Democratic Presidential candidate spending applied over the same length of time.

About the study:

Study: EVERY Democrat Presidential Candidate's Platform Would Raise, Not Lower, Federal Budget Deficits (http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=549&org_name=NTUF)

Study: EVERY Democrat Presidential Candidate's Platform Would Raise, Not Lower, Federal Budget Deficits

(Alexandria, VA) -- Long on rhetoric, short on restraint: that's the conclusion of a detailed review of each Democratic Presidential candidate's fiscal policy agenda released today by the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF). Despite expressing concern over red ink in the federal budget, every one of the eight hopefuls would worsen the deficit by billions or even trillions of dollars.

"All the Presidential challengers have to varying degrees disparaged the current size of federal deficits," said study author and NTUF Policy Analyst Drew Johnson. "Yet, our examination of the candidates' spending promises reveals an inconvenient fact: the deficit potholes they're complaining about on the road to the White House would only deepen under their own policies."

The NTUF study systematically examined the fiscal policy implications of the eight contenders' agendas, using campaign and third-party sources (like the Congressional Budget Office) to assign a cost to each budget proposal offered by the candidates. For actual legislation that the candidates have endorsed, the study also relies on NTUF's BillTally project, a computerized accounting system that has, since 1991, tabulated the cost or savings of every piece of legislation introduced in Congress with a net annual impact of $1 million or more. Highlights of the study include:

If the policy agenda of any one of the eight candidates were enacted in full, annual federal spending would rise by at least $169.6 billion (Lieberman) and as much as $1.33 trillion (Sharpton). This would translate to a yearly budget hike of between 7.6% and 59.5%.
All candidates offer platforms that call for more spending than would be offset by repealing the Bush tax cuts (using even generous estimates of the tax cuts' impact).
The eight candidates have proposed over 200 ideas to increase federal spending, and only two that would cut federal spending. Those two proposals have been offered by Dennis Kucinich (thus, the seven other candidates haven't made a single proposal to cut any spending).
Although they may attempt to stress their policy differences, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark would both increase annual federal outlays by roughly the same amount ($222.9 billion vs. $220.7 billion, respectively).
Among those candidates considered to be "competitive," Dick Gephardt posts the largest annual spending increase ($368.8 billion), far ahead of John Kerry ($265.11 billion).
Johnson noted that the study "does not even consider that the temptation to spend more money can increase after entering the White House." George W. Bush, for example, who campaigned as a fiscal conservative in 2000, has presided over a jump in federal spending of 23.7% since taking office. Yet, Johnson still found that even the most parsimonious of the Democrat Presidential candidates would have outpaced the spending run-up under Bush by 15%.

"During the 2000 Presidential election, the candidates traded charges of 'fuzzy math' and 'risky schemes' over each other's fiscal policy proposals," Johnson concluded. "Given the results of this study, many deficit-conscious Americans may be wondering if such terms are applicable to the 2004 race too."

NTUF is the research and educational arm of the National Taxpayers Union, a non-profit citizen group founded in 1969. Note: NTUF Policy Paper 148, The Return of Fuzzy Math and Risky Schemes: How Presidential Hopefuls Would Deepen Deficits, is available online at www.ntu.org. (http://www.ntu.org.) Also available are detailed reports, separated into policy categories, on each candidate's platform costs.

In case anyone is interested here's what some economists have to say about rescinding tax cuts:

About the letter:

116 Distinguished Economists Warn Congress: Don't Strangle Economic Recovery with Tax Hikes on Earnings, Options (http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=546&org_name=NTU)

116 Distinguished Economists Warn Congress: Don't Strangle Economic Recovery with Tax Hikes on Earnings, Options

(Alexandria, VA) -- The current jump in economic growth could quickly return to a slump if Congress repeals recent tax cuts or enacts new taxes on a key incentive for start-up businesses. That's the message 116 economists, led by Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, delivered to lawmakers today in an open letter organized by the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU).

"Economic recovery is always tricky, but heightened international tensions and the post 9/11 threat of domestic terrorism add to the difficulties," the statement explained. "Consequently, Congress needs to be especially careful not to enact tax policy which would harm financial markets, businesses, or consumers." Signatories hailed from a broad cross-section of academic institutions, think tanks, and private economic analysis firms.

NTU drafted the letter in response to two controversial tax proposals that Congress may consider after it returns to session next week. Some lawmakers seek repeal of all or part of the tax reductions enacted over the past three years, a move the signatories contend "would hurt the private sector, and consequently generate far less revenue than tax hike proponents claim." The economists stated that the tax cuts have "been quite beneficial to the economy" because they "have both lowered the aggregate tax burden and also lowered government-imposed barriers -- such as high marginal tax rates -- to economic growth."

Yet another often-discussed scheme would limit the amount of stock option expense a firm may deduct from taxable income to the actual amount reported in financial statements. "The effect of this change," the economists point out, "would be to raise billions in taxes, because private sector accounting rules … would leave companies with little choice but to take a deduction for options based on the lower 'fair value' when they are issued, rather than the higher 'intrinsic value' when exercised." Besides unfairly denying the full tax deduction for the real expense businesses incur in providing options, changing the tax law would also adversely impact small start-up firms, who must issue options because they often cannot afford to compete for talent with cash compensation.

The signatories acknowledged that Congress should be "rightly concerned about federal budget deficits," but nonetheless urged lawmakers "to recognize that the deficits have been caused by the economic slowdown and a run-up in federal spending." They concluded that "Congress should address its spending excesses and also enact policies that further economic growth. But the federal government should not hike taxes by reversing the recent tax cuts or by limiting what firms may deduct as stock option expenses. These actions are wrong and would imperil the economic recovery now underway."

NTU President John Berthoud, who organized the open letter and holds a Ph.D. in Political Economy from Yale, concluded that, "This statement is a clear warning from the best economic minds in America today: the job-creating, innovating businesses that will lead the next phase of our economic resurgence are depending upon Congress to avoid rash tax hikes and embrace fiscal restraint."

NTU is a non-profit, non-partisan citizen group working for tax reform, less wasteful spending, accountable government, permanent reductions in tax rates, and fair tax treatment for all businesses. Note: The full text of the economists' letter to Congress, a list of signatories, and two NTU Issue Briefs on stock option expensing and making recent tax cuts permanent, are all available at www.ntu.org. (http://www.ntu.org.)

The letter:

An Open Letter to the United States Congress

We, the undersigned economists, urge Congress to avoid enacting tax measures which would endanger the nation's economy as it continues to emerge from the recent slump. Economic recovery is always tricky, but heightened international tensions and the post 9/11 threat of domestic terrorism add to the difficulties. Consequently, Congress needs to be especially careful not to enact tax policy which would harm financial markets, businesses, or consumers.

Specifically we urge Congress to avoid two much-discussed tax proposals: 1) repealing all or part of the tax cuts adopted over the past three years, 2) limiting the amount that firms may deduct as a stock option expense.

First, the tax cuts adopted over the past three years have on the whole been quite beneficial to the economy. The tax cuts have both lowered the aggregate tax burden and also lowered government-imposed barriers -- such as high marginal tax rates -- to economic growth. Quite simply, eliminating some or all of these tax cuts (raising taxes) would hurt the private sector, and consequently generate far less revenue than tax hike proponents claim.

Second, there have been efforts in Congress to limit the amount that firms may deduct as a stock option expense from taxable income to the actual amount they report in financial statements. The effect of this change would be to raise billions in taxes, because private sector accounting rules (GAAP -- Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) would leave companies with little choice but to take a deduction for options based on the lower "fair value" when they are issued, rather than the higher "intrinsic value" when exercised. Companies would be able to deduct far less from taxes than what the options cost them as an expense.

The net result from altering the tax rules on stock option expenses would be disastrous. This change would move billions of dollars from the private sector into government coffers and represent the largest tax increase in a decade. Further, giving stock options to employees represents a real expense for firms and should be fully tax-deductible. Any other tax treatment is unfair. Finally, this change would hit start-up companies the hardest. These are exactly the businesses that need to use stock options the most. Without stock options, these firms would not be able to generate the great amount of innovation and jobs that they have in recent decades.

Many in Congress are rightly concerned about federal budget deficits. But we urge Congress to recognize that the deficits have been caused by the economic slowdown and a run-up in federal spending. The deficits did not come about because individuals or corporations are under-taxed. We believe that Congress should address its spending excesses and also enact policies that further economic growth. But the federal government should not hike taxes by reversing the recent tax cuts or by limiting what firms may deduct as stock option expenses. These actions are wrong and would imperil the economic recovery now underway.

Sincerely,

William P. Albrecht
University of Iowa
Donald L. Alexander
Western Michigan University

Charles Baird
California State University - Hayward
King Banaian
St. Cloud State University

Doug Bandow
American Legislative Exchange Council
William W. Beach
The Heritage Foundation

John Berthoud
National Taxpayers Union
Thomas E. Borcherding
Claremont Graduate University

Michael Brandl
The University of Texas - Austin
Steven Buccola
Oregon State University

Mary Bumgarner
Kennesaw State University
Richard C. K. Burdekin
Claremont McKenna College

Henry N. Butler
Chapman University
Noel D. Campbell
North Georgia College & State University

Gregory Chow
Princeton University
J. R. Clark
University of Tennessee - Chattanooga

John P. Cochran
Metropolitan State College of Denver
Jeffrey H. Dorfman
University of Georgia

Robert B. Ekelund, Jr.
Auburn University
Richard E. Ericson
East Carolina University

Frank Falero
California State University
Fred Foldvary
Santa Clara University

William F. Ford
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Micah Frankel
California State University - Hayward

Milton Friedman
Hoover Institution, Stanford University
David Garthoff
The University of Akron

Gerald T. Garvey
Claremont Graduate University
Gabriel Gasave
San Jose State University

James F. Gatti
University of Vermont
Joseph A. Giacalone
St. John's University

David Gitlitz
Trend Macrolytics, LLC
Peter Gordon
University of Southern California

Wendy L. Gramm
Mercatus Center
Scott F. Grannis
Western Asset Management

William B. Green
Sam Houston State University
John G. Greenhut
Arizona State University - West

Alfred J. Hagan
Pepperdine University
David L. Hammes
University of Hawaii - Hilo

John R. Hanson, II
Texas A&M University
Stephen Happel
Arizona State University

Steven Horwitz
St. Lawrence University
Guido Hülsmann
Ludwig von Mises Institute

Laurence R. Iannaccone
George Mason University
Marianne Jennings
Arizona State University

Jim Johnston
Amoco Corporation (retired)
Raymond J. Keating
Small Business Survival Committee

Richard La Near
Missouri Southern State University
Arthur B. Laffer
Laffer Associates

Russell Lamb
North Carolina State University
Robert A. Lawson
Capital University

Dwight Lee
University of Georgia
Ken Lehn
University of Pittsburgh

Donald L. Luskin
Trend Macrolytics, LLC
Paul MacAvoy
Yale University

Glenn MacDonald
Washington University - Saint Louis
Yuri N. Maltsev
Carthage College

John Matsusaka
University of Southern California
Merrill Matthews
Institute for Policy Innovation

Fred S. McChesney
Northwestern University
John Merrifield
University of Texas - San Antonio

Andrew P. Morriss
Case Western Reserve University
Michael C. Munger
Duke University

Anthony Negbenebor
Gardner-Webb University
Lee E. Ohanian
University of California - Los Angeles

James B. O'Neill
University of Delaware
William Orzechowski
Orzechowski & Walker

E. C. Pasour, Jr.
North Carolina State University
Judd W. Patton
Bellevue University

Mark J. Perry
University of Michigan - Flint
Penn R. Pfiffner
Fiscal Policy Center at the Independence Institute

Charles R. Plott
California Institute of Technology
Barry W. Poulson
University of Colorado

Richard W. Rahn
Discovery Institute
John Rapp
University of Dayton

W. Robert Reed
University of Oklahoma
Christine P. Ries
Georgia Institute of Technology

Paul H. Rubin
Emory University
Raymond Sauer
Clemson University

Byron Schlomach
Texas Public Policy Foundation
Larry Schweikart
University of Dayton

Robert Haney Scott
California State University - Chico
Larry J. Sechrest
Sul Ross State University

Howard Segermark
Segermark Associates, Inc.
Carlos Seiglie
Rutgers University

Stephen Shmanske
California State University - Hayward
William F. Shughart, II
University of Mississippi

James F. Smith
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Russell Sobel
West Virginia University

Mark Steckbeck
Hillsdale College
E. Frank Stephenson
Berry College

Houston H. Stokes
University of Illinois - Chicago
Courtenay C. Stone
Ball State University

John Tatom
DePaul University
Rebecca A. Thacker
Ohio University

Henry Thompson
Auburn University
Michael J. Tomas, III
University of Vermont

David G. Tuerck
Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University
Grace-Marie Turner
Galen Institute

Ludwig M. Van den Hauwe
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Robert Vigil
Analysis Group, Inc.

Richard E. Wagner
George Mason University
William B. Walstad
University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Jude Wanniski
Polyconomics, Inc.
John T. Wenders
University of Idaho

James B. Whisker
West Virginia University
Michael E. Williams
University of Denver

Walter E. Williams
George Mason University
Douglas Wills
University of Washington - Tacoma

Wayne Winegarden
Economic Solutions, LLC
Gary Wolfram
Hillsdale College

Gene C. Wunder
Washburn University
Paul J. Zak
Claremont Graduate University

Mokhlis Y. Zaki
Northern Michigan University
Asghar Zardkoohi
Texas A&M University

Michael Zimmer
University of Evansville
L.H. Zincone, Jr.
East Carolina University



An Open Letter to the United States Congress (http://www.ntu.org/main/letters_detail.php?letter_id=147)

The message in the letter is that higher corporate taxes, mean less jobs, which means increased worker misery, which means less government revenues, which means more goverment handouts, which means more government spending. If a tax and spend liberal like Kerry gets elected it could be an economic disaster but probably won't be as the likely outcome is federal government gridlock. The Democrats won't win a majority in the House and are likely to lose seats in the Senate. Kerry is a decided dog in the election in more ways than one.

[Eihli]

You are an idiot. Quit trying to use unfounded justification to win an argument that is sorely made. Point put, the man is doing a fine job as president but since you, sir, are more capable of filling the job as president you should run. Quit being critical on the man, hes got a difficult job and i am pleased at the effort puth forth as of now.

Also are you denying Iraq had chemical weapons?
I think its proven that they did.
The anthrax they used to kill 10,000 kurds...I guess that didn't exist?

It is just a matter of when and where we find them, so shut your mouth and coerce your effort into being critical of someone who actually needs it, like Michael Jackson.

[brad]

'Also are you denying Iraq had chemical weapons?
I think its proven that they did.
The anthrax they used to kill 10,000 kurds...I guess that didn't exist?
'

thats it in a nutshell. the american public is simply totally propagndized and couldnt recognize the truth if it hit them with a 2 by 4

[Wake up CALL]

"John Kerry may start thinking about his cabinet soon."

God you are funny Andy. You are grasping at straws sir. The only cabinent Kerry needs is the one he will be building to pay off his loans unless the rich Mrs. offers to bail him out.

[Utah]

Wait - I guess I have been completely brainwashed by the evil doers in the Bush administration. Gosh, how stupid of me. Thanks for setting the situation straight.

Just curious though, how did the Bush administration get all those kurds to play dead in those gastly pictures?

[Taxman]

I love how your entire article of pages and pages is all based fron the NTU website, which is clearly a biased source. I also like how they don't talk about how many billions of dollars go to the military, far more than any other of the programs they are complaining about. They do mention the increase in government spending, but this doesn't qualify. If they're going to criticize the platforms of the democratic candidates, they should also take a look at more things about the current administration than it's tax cuts and vague comments about spending. Based on the democratic platforms presented so far, even if they did repeal the tax cut, they would also significantly reduce spending. Thus neither side can be entirely correct by their model. In this way, the plethora of information introduced here fails to make neither Kerry nor Bush look like the answer. Again, corporate taxes differ from individual income taxes. It is possible to modify only some of the various taxes. I feel like many supporters of Bush have a real problem defining any faults in his presidency. No president has ever been perfect, but some people would have you believe that the current one is as close as we've been. Perhaps this is a knee jerk reaction to the various criticisms of him, but such things are an integral part of politics. I can only hope that the perspective of history will reveal to those people, the big picture that they were missing during these last few years.

[MMMMMM]

I think brad may be mistaking brainwashing for merely confusing anthrax with VX or some other chemical agent in this instance. Maybe Moloch got ahold of him, eh, brad? ;-)

[AleoMagus]

Saddam had anthrax all right, and you americans should know - you gave it to him.

The following is an excerpt fron an AWTW news service article:

In March 1988, during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein sent in his air force to bomb Halabja for three days. This Iraqi Kurdish town is 11 kilometres from the Iranian border, and Saddam wanted to punish its inhabitants for taking advantage of the war to rise up against his regime. On March 16, Iraqi jet fighters made 20 bombing runs, dropping chemical and nerve gas on Halabja. They killed more than 5,000 people within a few hours.

Now, in his 29 January State of the Union speech, President Bush used this incident as a reason for the US to go to war against Iraq: “The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.”

The problem with Bush’s story is that the US helped Iraq perpetrate that attack and then covered up for Saddam. In fact, Bush’s own people are personally responsible.

In 1980, alarmed by the overthrow of the keystone to American influence in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, the US encouraged Iraq to attack Iran. As the current issue of A World to Win magazine explains, “Later, as famously revealed in the ‘Iran-Contra’ scandal, the US also gave weapons to Iran to prolong the war and make sure that there was as much killing and mutual weakening of both regimes as possible. (A million people died in this war.)

“The US first sent anthrax stock to Iraq in 1978, with seven shipments in all in the following decade. President Reagan sent Rumsfeld as his special envoy to meet with Saddam in December 1983, and re-opened the US embassy in Baghdad. In March 1984, the day that the UN released a report condemning Iraq’s use of poisonous gas against Iranian troops, Rumsfeld was meeting with Saddam’s Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. In 1986, the Pentagon assigned officers to work with their Iraqi counterparts to increase the killing power of Saddam’s air force. In March 1988, that air force dropped gas bombs on Halabja, an Iraqi village under the control of rebel Kurds, killing several thousand civilians. German companies provided the gas itself. Amidst world uproar and protest, US officials claimed that they had reviewed the evidence and found it ‘inconclusive’. That year, under the presidency of Bush the father, Washington approved the export of virus cultures for military use to Iraq, as well as a $1 billion private contract to build a petrochemical plant designed to be equally usable to make mustard gas. Bush senior also approved sending Iraq $500 million in aid (in the form of subsidies to buy American farm products) and doubled that the following year. The UK, too, sent Iraq weapons-related equipment after the Halabja attack.… Eventually, the Iranian regime became more ‘reasonable’ by US standards and Saddam’s ambitions proved to be a less than perfect fit with those of the American imperialists, so Bush the father set out to destroy Iraqi power in 1991.”

In fact, in 1988, Bush’s father prevented the UN Security Council from condemning Iraq for the same crime that Bush the son is now trying to use as a moral pretext to once again bomb and invade Iraq.

For the record, UN sanctions have directly led to the deaths of over a million citizens of iraq - mostly children.

I know Saddam is a bad guy, and it is good for Iraq that he is gone, but don't kid yourself about the Bush administration either - they have more chemical, biological, nuclear weapons than they could have ever expected to find in Iraq in GWB's biggest wet dream. I don't know why though, when it is so easy to kill a million here or there with diplomacy alone. I guess the American's nukes and chemicals are ok though because they would never use them (they give them to other people to use, then attack those guys later).

Regards,
Brad S

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Quit trying to use unfounded justification to win an argument that is sorely made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's take a look at how well your argument is made.

[ QUOTE ]
the man is doing a fine job as president but since you, sir, are more capable of filling the job as president you should run.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be implying that Andy shouldn't criticize anybody in a position he's not qualified to fill. I guess most of us should lay off all politicans, as well as sports coaches and others. Grady Little, I take it all back! Who am I to say you should have pulled Pedro?

[ QUOTE ]
Quit being critical on the man, hes got a difficult job and i am pleased at the effort puth forth as of now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I get it. We shouldn't criticize anything or anybody you happen to be pleased with. To avoid further mistakes like this, why don't you post a list of those issues and people that do and don't please you, so that the rest of us know what we should and should not discuss here.

[Chris Alger]

"Also are you denying Iraq had chemical weapons?"

You mean that had something to do with the war? Bush's hand-picked weapons inspector, David Kay, did exactly this yesterday.

The man you think is doing a "fine job" has murdered roughly twice as many civilians as the Kurds Saddam killed with chemical weapons (not anthrax) in Halabja. Hajabja preceded efforts by Republican leaders like George Schultz, Bob Dole, Alan Simpson, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld to strengthen U.S. ties to Saddam and keep him in power, which shows how much they (and you) give a damn about mass murder in Iraq.

I take it that if you lived in Iraq you'd have the same sort of emotional attachment to the national leader and sing praises about his "fine job" with as much understanding as you've shown about Bush.

[andyfox]

When I visited Boston several years back, our guide pointed out a very famous fire hydrant that had been moved around the corner, so that Mrs. Heinz/Kerry did not have to see out her window. It pays to have pull.

I watched Kerry speaking in New Hampshire today. Stilted and overscripted. His hair looked good though. And he's tall and perhaps vaguely Kennedyesque (in the good sense of the term).

Stranger things have happened. Ask the president's father.

[andyfox]

"You are an idiot."

When Krushchev was running the Soviet Union, he told JFK this joke: A man was running around the Kremlin shouting, "Krushchev is an idiot! Krushchev is an idiot." So we arrested him and tried him, Krushchev said, and sentenced him to 30 years of hard labor in Siberia: ten for insulting the Party Secretary, and twenty for revealing a state secret.

It is not I who said they didn't have WMDs, it is the chief weapons inspector appointed by the president who is doing such a fine job, difficult as it may be.

Unfounded justification is the specialty of the administration.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
You are an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy is not an idiot. You can disagree with his assertions and politics but there is no need to attack him personally, if indeed you were serious about your statement. Attack the soundness of his arguments or logic or other statements that you disagree with and leave it at that. This forum already has enough acrimony. If you do not think his arguments hold water then say Andy's arguments are idiotic, which by the way they are not.

Overreaching perhaps.

And as others pointed out, chemical weapons, not a biological agent, killed the Kurds though I do not know the specific chemical gas used.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

I just saw your post - better job than I did. Great story.

I'm voting for Bush by the way in case you didn't know. I have my reasons but I can't reveal them as they are all State Secrets. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

That the regime of Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, i.e. poison gas, against the Iranians and the Kurds, no one except Baghdad Bob will deny. (What a lot of people in this forum will deny, though, is that when Saddam was using WMDs against the Iranians, he had the enthusiastic approval of the folks back in Washington!)

The point is that Saddam had the West worried sick about his WMDs (witness Clinton's numerous statements to that effect; witness the Congress resolution passed during Clinton's term that supported "regime change in Baghdad"). But that worry was NOT over the threshold of considering Iraq such a threat as to warrant a new crusade over there, in order to remove him.

The West knew only that Saddam MAYBE still had WMDs at the time Wolfowitz and the gang started thumbing their chests. The UN inspectors were finding nothing, though, the intellligence agencies of the West were feeding their political superiors with intel that did not show any WMDs whatsoever, there was no reliable and probable evidence of any Iraqi danger for the West's security coming out from anywhere, nobody had anything , except for an orchestrated hysteria over a war that just had to be carried out!

Even a hawk such as Zbignew Brzezisnky stated that if the President did have (even secretly) strong evidence that Saddam had WMDS and that he was a threat to national security, then the Prez should act immediately and unilaterally. Otherwise, there should be no war without the consent of the western community!

And, lest we forget, this was about the War on Terror. (Something which we forget, conveniently.) The link between Saddam's regime and any terrorist act of the last ten years has yet to be made. Outside of Limbaugh's drug-infested mind.

[jokerswild]

He is a real war hero. not a deserter. Bush is the first deserter ever appointed President by a 5-4 proclamation.

[MMMMMM]

On Jan. 25, 2004, David Kay also said this:

(excerpt)
Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 25/01/2004)

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." (end excerpt)

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml

[Norm]

Some of us Massachusetts residents are not looking forward to the term "Massachusetts Democrats" being used in the same way "San Francisco Democrats" was in 1988. The perils of having the convention in this state.

[MMMMMM]

"The link between Saddam's regime and any terrorist act of the last ten years has yet to be made. Outside of Limbaugh's drug-infested mind."

I guess those tens of thousands of dollars Saddam paid to each Palestinian family who sent a suicide bomber was zero incentive, then, eh? (I know this isn't what you were referring to, but just thought it should be added for the sake of completeness. Hard to imagine that Saddam's payoffs to Palestinian families didn't help sway some would-be, on-the-fence suicide bombers' minds. And this is a clear link to terrorist acts, though not in the sense you were referencing).

[Utah]

Funny how you and you Hezbollah buddies think Bush is a murderer, but the very people that he supposedly murdered have embraced him.

Hmmm....they must really really be stupid. Oh wait, maybe.....just maybe....they understand the price of freedom.

[Utah]

the intellligence agencies of the West were feeding their political superiors with intel that did not show any WMDs whatsoever, there was no reliable and probable evidence of any Iraqi danger for the West's security coming out from anywhere, nobody had anything , except for an orchestrated hysteria over a war that just had to be carried out!

Wow. One would guess with statements like this that you were a member of Bush's inner circle. However, one might also suspect that you are simply pulling info out of your a#$. Or maybe you have been hanging out with Oliver Stone too much.

Just curious, can you define the calculus that determines the threshold? and, if I am not mistaken, did the administration give Saddam several chances to completely avoid the war?

[jokerswild]

There is plenty of evidence that Saddam has connections to terrorist sponsors such as Donald Rumsfeld. If the Shiites win the elections, which the Bush Administration is fighiting hard to suppress, Rumsfeld may well be indicted by Iraq as complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
the very people that he supposedly murdered have embraced him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's why more Americans have died after the war ended than during it (when most of the deaths were from helicopter crashes anyway).

[Taxman]

This information means nothing. There is "evidence," not proof, that weapons were moved at some point in time, though they would have said when if they knew (ie it could have been moved a long time ago if at all). It's also stated to not be "about a large stockpile of weapons." Personally, I wouldn't consider the war justified just because they finally found a whole 2 saren gas rockets in Syria. Every bit of "evidence" found thus far has been little more than a few gas masks and some medical supplies.

[MMMMMM]

Inconclusive is not the same as meaningless.

Syria has been put on notice, too.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]

Wow. One would guess with statements like this that you were a member of Bush's inner circle. However, one might also suspect that you are simply pulling info out of your a#$. Or maybe you have been hanging out with Oliver Stone too much.

Just curious, can you define the calculus that determines the threshold? and, if I am not mistaken, did the administration give Saddam several chances to completely avoid the war?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why should I have to be a member of Bush's inner circle to get evidence of WMD's before my country invades Iraq? He was going to take his case to the people that Iraq posed an important threat. Bush diverted billions of dollars toward the Iraqi operation, when the resources that went toward Iraq could have surely gone to other areas involved in the fight against terror (like capturing you-know-who still hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan).

Remember, Bush, not the Democrats, not Michael Moore, not Jane Fonda, not Oliver Stone, not Susan Sarandon, or whatever "lefty" bugaboo you want to try to attack, said that we were getting involved in Iraq because of the threat of WMD's and links to Al Qaeda. If you are going to put people's lives on the line for this cause, then you should be forced to back up your claims with facts, or at least reasonable evidence why you think your claims might be true. The Bush administration never met any of this criteria, IMO.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]

Funny how you and you Hezbollah buddies think Bush is a murderer, but the very people that he supposedly murdered have embraced him.

Hmmm....they must really really be stupid. Oh wait, maybe.....just maybe....they understand the price of freedom.


[/ QUOTE ]

You run off at the mouth a little too much. Who are you to accuse anyone of being a member of Hezbollah? Rambo? GI Joe?

And just because the Iraqis don't like the insane Hussein doesn't mean they are idiots enough to believe that the US invaded them out of the goodness of their hearts. They knew that Bush wanted Saddam out of there and that the US had to help start some sort of democratic government in Iraq or else risk looking like a bunch of jerks in front of the international community. So they aren't exactly "embracing" Bush; they are embracing the opportunity to be rid of a horrible dictator. Don't believe me? Click on this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5050.htm

[Taxman]

Of course it is meaningful, but let's not jump the gun and use it as justification for everything. Like I said even if they found a small amount of weapons, that still doesn't necessarily make an invasion an imperitive step.

[Utah]

You run off at the mouth a little too much. Who are you to accuse anyone of being a member of Hezbollah? Rambo? GI Joe?

Hold your ponies and relax a bit. Alger is sympathetic to the cause of Hezbollah and similar groups - simply read his posts and you will see this. Although, in fairness, he says he doesn't support their methods. If you read the post carefully I never said he was a member.

And just because the Iraqis don't like the insane Hussein doesn't mean they are idiots enough to believe that the US invaded them out of the goodness of their hearts. They knew that Bush wanted Saddam out of there and that the US had to help start some sort of democratic government in Iraq or else risk looking like a bunch of jerks in front of the international community. So they aren't exactly "embracing" Bush; they are embracing the opportunity to be rid of a horrible dictator. Don't believe me? Click on this:

Either way they are happy that Saddam is gone (it appears the only ones who are not are some of the democratic Presidential Candidates). Therefore, to call Bush a murderer is very misleading since the people who he supposedly murdered are happy that he undertook the action that caused their death. The ones who are upset about the deaths are the liberals in the U.S., not the Iraqis.

As to your article, you are going to have to do better than taking info. from the Arab Press, which is hardly a bastion of neutral reporting.

[Utah]

that we were getting involved in Iraq because of the threat of WMD's and links to Al Qaeda.

No - that is simply the left revising history. The main public argument was that Saddam had not lived up to U.N. resolutions and that they did not account for known weapons. Saddam had many opportunities to stop the invasion.

diverted billions of dollars toward the Iraqi operation, when the resources that went toward Iraq could have surely gone to other areas involved in the fight against terror

Regardless of whether we should have went to war, it certainly seems to have helped in the global war on terrorism. Our position was significantly strengthened with N. Korea, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc. These countries understand that the threats from the U.S. are not hollow and that the U.S. will put boot-to-a#$ if need be. Unless, of course, a democrat is elected president. Which, in that case, will mean resorting back to the "constructive dialogue" tactics with the world community and terrorist nations that allowed Al Qaeda and terrorist groups to flourish and which directly led to 9/11, Cole Bombing, African Embassy Bombings, etc.

[Utah]

Of course, any first grader can see through such a faulty argument. The problems with this argument are so obvious they are not worth discussing.

[John Cole]

One document, 12,000 pages, was denounced within hours.

[Chris Alger]

Right, they embrace him so much he can't show his face to them and they shoot ten of his troops every day. Utah: if there's one thing that every should agree on now, its that just because the White House says something doesn't make it true. I know that Stalinist leader worship is a tough habit to break, but given that it is increasingly being shown that the White House is run by compulsive, pathological liars, you should at least make an effort. And Bush didn't "supposedly" murder them. They're really, actually dead.

According to a recent Gallup poll (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/05/spin_clouds_truth_in_polls_of_iraqis/) (the story also includes accounts of Cheney trying to mislead about the results, perhaps snaring you in the process), only 62% of Iraqis believe that the hardships of the war was worth getting rid of Saddam. How much of this sentiment is attributable to the end of sanctions and aid money wasn't asked. The margins, howevet, appear to be thin: an Oxford Research International Poll showed 35% of Iraqis claiming that the worse thing that's happened to them is the "the war, the bombings, and the defeat of the Iraqi army."

The polls also show a great deal of skepticism and fear concerning the U.S. Nothing suggests that Iraqis have "embraced" President Bush.

1. 50% of Iraqis that believe the U.S. will hurt Iraq; only 35% believe it will help (whereas most believed the UN would help).
2. 79% say they have little or no confidence in the occupation forces and leadership.
3. Iraqis believe they are worse off instead of better off as a result of the invasion than before by 47% to 33%.
4. 94% believe Baghdad is more dangerous as a result of the invasion than before.
5. Most Iraqis want the U.S. to leave rather than staying to organize Iraq's government.

And while it's perhaps hopeless when you're brainwashed, you should also make an attempt to understand why foreign military occupation isn't regarded by rational people as "freedom."

[Chris Alger]

"Alger is sympathetic to the cause of Hezbollah and similar groups"

I've never said anything sympathetic about Hezbollah, unless by pointing out the fact that Hezbollah didn't exist until the Israelis started bombing Shiite villages in Southern Lebanon. Statements of historical fact shouldn't be construed as necessary "sympathy."

"Either way they are happy that Saddam is gone (it appears the only ones who are not are some of the democratic Presidential Candidates). Therefore, to call Bush a murderer is very misleading since the people who he supposedly murdered are happy that he undertook the action that caused their death."

Which means that Bush could have stood 90% of Iraq's population against a wall, shot them, and if the survivors say they're glad Saddam's gone then Bush is exonerated from murder. That's smart.

"The ones who are upset about the deaths are the liberals in the U.S., not the Iraqis."

That's an unusually candid expression of the racist/imperialist mindset: the families of the civilians we kill aren't even "upset" about the deaths. Probably some sort of Muslim death wish thing.

[Chris Alger]

But you manged to discuss the point without mentioning the "obvious" problems. You're the one that said that dead people have "embraced" Bush. Have some trouble in first grade?

It's not only a good argument it's unanswerable: if some Iraqis hate Bush to the point of killing his troops daily, it is logically impossible to factually state that "the" Iraqis, much less the Iraqis that have been killed by the U.S., have embraced President Bush, as you implied.

[Cyrus]

"Regardless of whether we should have went to war, it certainly seems to have helped in the global war on terrorism."

That just about ranks as worthy as the teachings of TARGET gurus in Blackjack. "You's gotta concentrate and be cool to hit 'em lucky streaks..."

But don't think them fellas in the White House are planning their moves with any more elaborate thinking than the above, though. (You think I'm kidding? Paul Wolfowitz admitted that there were no plans for post-victory in Iraq because that would be planning "too far ahead" in a situation with "too many variables"! Utah can do that gig no sweat.)

[MattHatter]

O.K Here is something you all should see.

This is from a John Pilger Documentary called 'Breaking The Silence'

This is footage of Colin Powell (in Egypt if im not mistaken) just months before 9/11.. Listen to what he says about Iraq and WMD. Quite A different story just a few months later.

Also in this little Gem is Condoleeza Rice.. anothe huge liar. Saying basically the same things at the same time.

They both state that Sanctions work, that iraq has not been able to reconstiturte it's WMD program. That he is contained. and CANNOT EVEN POSE A CONVENTIONAL THREAT TO HIS NIEGHBORS! (Thier words not mine). Not to mention the threat of WMD to a nation halfway around the world.

But it serves both of these lying murderous liars that when it comes time to perform (just a few months later) the truth goes out the window.

I heard that Colin Powell refused to give the UN speech unless George Tenet sat behind him... cause Colin knew it was a load of crap.. but he had to perform for the boss.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

If you look.. you can find the full DL of this Documentary on the web.

[Utah]

Ah, I have missed sparing with you ole' Cyrus. I am not sure if it is either the humorous backwards logic that I enjoy the most or the always original titles.

Paul Wolfowitz admitted that there were no plans for post-victory in Iraq because that would be planning "too far ahead" in a situation with "too many variables"!

I thought it was Rummy who said that, not Paul W. I could be wrong though as there is a first time for everything /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Because you cannot plan exactly does not mean something doesn't have inherent value or negative consequences. In the business world, you can sometimes use some pretty fancy calculus to arrive at a quantitative value. This is called the option pricing of an investment and it uses calculus to arrive at a value across an infinite number of possibilities across a set range (Black- Shoales Model). Or for the simple minded you can even use a simple binominal model. Or, if one doesn't like calculus, you can construction some pretty elaborate Game Theory cubes to account for probabilities across many scenarios.

Also, sometimes it simply is unknowable and you simply need to use qualitative analysis.

I might say that I can't plan today how I am going to run my business in three years (which is true). However, that in no way says I shouldn't have started my business.

The same type of analysis goes into war planning or many other types of decision making.

[bigpooch]

Excellent post! WMDs is just a red herring anyway; GW was
just following orders!

[Chris Alger]

Here's the left's President Bush revising history during his speech on the eve of war:

"[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaida. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other."

[ QUOTE ]
"it certainly seems to have helped in the global war on terrorism"

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, it did this through a massive application of state terrorism that made much of the world start rooting for anti-U.S. terrorists, including those Iraqi terrorists the war created, who have now killed hundreds of Americans with no end in sight.

[ QUOTE ]
Our position was significantly strengthened with N. Korea, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc. These countries understand that the threats from the U.S. are not hollow and that the U.S. will put boot-to-a#$ if need be." Unless, of course, a democrat is elected president. Which, in that case, will mean resorting back to the "constructive dialogue" tactics with the world community and terrorist nations that allowed Al Qaeda and terrorist groups to flourish and which directly led to 9/11, Cole Bombing, African Embassy Bombings, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
No these countries understand quite well that Bush has expended all of his political capital and available funds on Iraq and therefore has hardly any ability to launch a new war against them. Hence, Bush has been forced into a "constructive dialogue" with Iran and N. Korea, effectively begging and bribing them to halt their nuclear weapons programs. And because the U.S. position is significantly weaker than it was in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush having made himself into the most hated leader in the world, they're laughing at him. Libya? After spending years rehabilitating its image in the West, this country hasn't been on anyone's threat screen since the phony baloney "Libyan hit squad" of Reagan's day.

You really have no idea about our relationship with Pakistan and Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban and al Qaeda, do you?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
One document, 12,000 pages, was denounced within hours.

[/ QUOTE ]


Any document 12,000 pages long should be denounced within seconds not hours. I hope you would agree to this in principle anyway.

-Zeno

[MattHatter]

Just out of curiosity...
are you the bigpooch (I think that's the name) that along with leather keep me from playin 5 card draw at paradise?

[bigpooch]

You're welcome to play at my table any time! I never use
profane language and will always try to say "vn!" when you
beat me with quads or better (unless I am playing a total of
six tables, in which case I may not have time!). And you
get around 120 hands an hour and the recreational players
are sometimes quite friendly!

[MMMMMM]

62% of Iraqis, as quoted elsewhere in this thread, sounds pretty much like a landslide in any other environment.

And pointing to a minority of Iraqis objecting to Saddam's removal, or to a much smaller percentage actually attacking US soldiers, is not evidence that "the Iraqis" disapprove (since "the Iraqis" obviously refers to "most Iraqis" not "all Iraqis").

I have rarely seen such hollow arguments as those put forth in this thread by you and hetron. Utah is making very good sense in this thread.

[MattHatter]

Heh, suspected as much.

I like to play it for fun.. but avoided a few players (who always seem to be there /images/graemlins/wink.gif) and you were one of them.

I like fish better /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Taxman]

My comment was made concerning the fact that Utah unilaterally stated a conclusion about a subject that in fact has no clear answer. First of all, I ask someone to provide a link to a source citing 62%, secondly I would like to know the exact question asked in the poll and thirdly, concerning the issue of a conquering force, 38% certainly isn't a small minority in any case. The exact question used in the poll is important (as is the sample group, which is another thing worth serious consideration) because there is a big difference between "are you glad Saddam Hussein is gone?" and "do you embrace Bush as your liberator?" Just because 62% are glad he is gone doesn't mean they are glad Bush is there. I'm quite confident that nobody posting in response to me thus far can answer these questions. When you don't understand an argument Utah, you might be best off not responding to it at all.

[Utah]

Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaida. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other

what is fundamentally wrong with that statment? Terrorists dont want to kill millions of Americans? Terrorists are not seeking WMDs? Iraq did not train and help terrorists? The only question open is whether Iraq trained Al Qaeda terrorists.

Right, it did this through a massive application of state terrorism that made much of the world start rooting for anti-U.S. terrorists, including those Iraqi terrorists the war created, who have now killed hundreds of Americans with no end in sight

By military standards the deaths so far in two wars is unbelievably low. What - 1,000 or so dead in two major military engagements? Not exactly like the U.S. is getting slaughtered now is it.

I'm sorry but do we really give a rats a$#% what the likes of Russia, Germany, and France think about the U.S. These countries should be on the list of those sponsoring terrorists. Who says the war created those terrorists? seems to me that there was a lot of terrorists around before the invasion. I am not sure, but did you hear about those 20 terrorists who crashed planes into buildings before the war? Hm...what caused those terrorists born during the Clinton Feel Good administration?

No these countries understand quite well that Bush has expended all of his political capital and available funds on Iraq and therefore has hardly any ability to launch a new war against them. Hence, Bush has been forced into a "constructive dialogue" with Iran and N. Korea, effectively begging and bribing them to halt their nuclear weapons programs. And because the U.S. position is significantly weaker than it was in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush having made himself into the most hated leader in the world, they're laughing at him. Libya? After spending years rehabilitating its image in the West, this country hasn't been on anyone's threat screen since the phony baloney "Libyan hit squad" of Reagan's day.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. These terrorist states have seen the U.S. government take down two hostile regimes. You don't think that they are a little concerned that they are next? Of course, the ability to attack other hostile regimes wouldn't really matter to you anyway as I cannot possibly envision a scenario where you would favor a U.S. attack. Maybe you could start a fund called "Make Friends with Terrorist States". You could send postcards and cookies to them and everything will be solved.

Also, they are not laughing at him. They are scared to death of him. Also, he is very well loved in this country. My bet with you on the election, which you rejected, still stands.

What's your point of Pakistan - that there are elements in the government that heavily supported and still support terrorism?

[Utah]

It is obvious to someone who is not filled up with so much hate for their own country.

We are talking about large numbers here. Lets look at a simple example for you since it seems you like things at the first grade level.

Statement: Americans support their democracy
Contradiction: No,they dont! Duh! They blew up that building in Oklahoma. Therefore, Americans hate their democracy.

Your smart enough that I dont need to explain the faulty logic. If not, please feel free to ask a first grader.

[Utah]

I've never said anything sympathetic about Hezbollah, unless by pointing out the fact that Hezbollah didn't exist until the Israelis started bombing Shiite villages in Southern Lebanon. Statements of historical fact shouldn't be construed as necessary "sympathy."

Yes, that is sympathetic in the true sense of the word. You do not think that they are borne out of evil but rather are a result of Israeli action. Nothing really wrong with being sympathic to a group, although it allows me to take free shots at you /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Which means that Bush could have stood 90% of Iraq's population against a wall, shot them, and if the survivors say they're glad Saddam's gone then Bush is exonerated from murder. That's smart.

Which, of course, is not what he did. There is always trade-offs and hard decisions. Again, you want to forget that there was a hell of a lot of killing in Iraq before we got there. Let me ask you, what if the president accurately estimated that Saddam would kill 20,000 of his own people if he did not invade. Would you then be in favor of the invasion? You need to recognize lives were also saved even if we dont know the balance.

Just curious, do you call congress and the president murderers for allowing a 55 mph speed limit or allowing for the consumption of alcohol which combined causes something like 50,000 deaths a year?

That's an unusually candid expression of the racist/imperialist mindset: the families of the civilians we kill aren't even "upset" about the deaths. Probably some sort of Muslim death wish thing.

Faulty logic of course. The question is whether they would have supported the war before their love ones died. Easy to be upset when you draw the short straw.

Its like asking a family of someone killed by a drunk driver if they favor relaxing drinking and driving laws.

[Taxman]

I must say that I have a hard time not being a total jackass to you given your rediculous and hateful comments, but in the name of civility I will refrain. Do you really think people like Chris and myself hate our country so much? If so, you are the one that needs to talk to a first grader. The fact that you make irrational statements and then defend their logic by calling them something a child would understand is similarly rediculous. Also you should read my post below which you seemed to have ignored, probably because it's too sophisticated for a first grader. Your words are those of someone who doesn't actually know how to support his argument and thus resorts to ad hominem attacks to belittle those who know more than him. Your "simple example" is completely irrelevant given the statements I have already made defending myself against your boorish attack. Even if I did not make those comments, your example still fails because you never provided a sound basis for your original argument. I repeat again, if you don't understand a point your best bet would be not to respond to it.

[Utah]

If you read the posts carefully, you would see that Alger brought up the first grade thing first.

Also, as far as Alger hating his country, we have debated the issue ad nauseum and I therefore do not want to rehash it again. I would submit that in this thread Alger calls the U.S. terrorists. Enough said.

Finally, I have always felt that when you insult someone that you should not look like a fool doing so. I would have pointed out that you were incapable of spelling ridiculous and therefore looked ridiculous yourself. But in the name of civility, I will refrain.

[adios]

"I love how your entire article of pages and pages is all based fron the NTU website, which is clearly a biased source."

Yep they're biased against tax increases.

"I also like how they don't talk about how many billions of dollars go to the military, far more than any other of the programs they are complaining about."

The article I posted was about how much each candidates proposals would increase government spending. There's plenty of information and papers on defense spending if you look for it on the site.

"They do mention the increase in government spending, but this doesn't qualify."

Qualify for what?

"If they're going to criticize the platforms of the democratic candidates, they should also take a look at more things about the current administration than it's tax cuts and vague comments about spending."

Again they have an article about Bush's State of the Union and the impact on the budget. Just look for it you'll find it. You're obfusccating. I'm pointing out Kerry's being disingenous about what him cutting the budget decicit.
Apparently you're not denying this.

"Based on the democratic platforms presented so far, even if they did repeal the tax cut, they would also significantly reduce spending."

Oh really. What specifically do you refute in the NTU study?

"Thus neither side can be entirely correct by their model."

Model of what?

"In this way, the plethora of information introduced here fails to make neither Kerry nor Bush look like the answer."

The answer to what?

"Again, corporate taxes differ from individual income taxes."

Don't understand your point. A tax is a tax. What constitutes taxable income to a corporation as opposed to taxable income to an individual are two different things for the most part. BTW the difficulty in defining taxable income for each and all categories of income earners is the reason the tax code is so complicated.

"It is possible to modify only some of the various taxes."

Wrong it's possible to modify all tax laws.

"I feel like many supporters of Bush have a real problem defining any faults in his presidency."

Ok

"No president has ever been perfect, but some people would have you believe that the current one is as close as we've been."

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

"Perhaps this is a knee jerk reaction to the various criticisms of him, but such things are an integral part of politics."

If you say so.

"I can only hope that the perspective of history will reveal to those people, the big picture that they were missing during these last few years."

Do tell. Don't keep us in suspense.

[adios]

Well did he ever land on an aircraft carrier /images/graemlins/smile.gif? I'll bet you didn't think of the deserter comment all by yourself either.

[Taxman]

Well thanks for setting me straight. Obviously the coherency of my arguments is no match for your superior spelling skills. I would guess that Alger didn't call the US a terrorist state but more likely made a comment on its use of violence in Iraq. That may be a strong comment but it is not the same as hating America. No I didn't bother going thorugh the entire thread, but either way I don't care about such petty squabbling. I care about legitimate and logical debate.

[Utah]

I would guess that Alger didn't call the US a terrorist state but more likely made a comment on its use of violence in Iraq. That may be a strong comment but it is not the same as hating America.

Same diff. It is a tedious and long running debate between us. You are jumping in out of context.

Obviously the coherency of my arguments is no match for your superior spelling skills

No, I am a terrible speller. However, when I insult someone I usually double check my spelling /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jokerswild]

No, it's a fact. He was grounded by the
Texas Air National Guard for being to drunk to fly. Since he couldn't play with the airplanes any more, he quit showing up for 18 months. That's the military experience of the appointed President.

[Taxman]

My point is that the quotes you provided all focused on the spending platforms of the deomcratic candidates. You were using them as evidence against htose candidates and I was merely pointing out an example of something that could and should be cut before all of the other programs those candidates support. "I'm pointing out Kerry's being disingenous about what him cutting the budget decicit." First off that sentence doesn't entirely make sense, but a clear objective of your post was to point out flaws in the democratic candidates, without balancing this with any similar comments on Bush. If you're going to quote that extensively then you should include other relevant information. Questioning every thing I say without explicitly defining it is a weak way to argue. I will try to be more specific, but you know what I meant by the model of either side (ie the economic policies). You are the one obfuscating now, discrediting the vague parts of my arguments without making any actual arguments of your own. Similarly the answer I refer to is obviously meant as the "answer" to solving the economic problems of today. The importance of the difference between corporate and individual taxes is that corporations might be more able and more willing to utilize extra capital in a more constructive manner than individual billionaires.

In your post you said, "wrong it's possible to modify all tax laws." Ok I'll give you this one (sorta), I was vague, but do you really think I'm dumb enough to think all laws can't be changed? I meant that a selective review of the type of taxes raised or lowered can be a useful and legitimate way of doing things as opposed to a unilateral decision of raising/lowering all taxes (or maybe this is done, but in a way to benefit only certain people. Yes, this is opinion, not fact). I'm not trying to refute the NTU model, I'm only doing what you are trying to do to me with your response, and that is cast a question over the ultimate truth provided by it. "BTW the difficulty in defining taxable income for each and all categories of income earners is the reason the tax code is so complicated." I couldn't agree more. I know I just mentioned selective review under our current system, but ultimately I think the tax code is in dire need of extensive simplification. Also there's no need to make obtuse comments to my observations. Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion and I was just stating mine. And yes, I do say so: criticism is an integral part of politics (unless you prefer the soviet Russia model). History will tell (more about) how things really are now because that's how history works. I'm not so vain as to claim I know what that will mean. I do know that there are far more people that want tax cuts because they want more money, than care about the environmental health and future of our planet. And then there's the people who complain to high heaven about the probles with public education, but refuse to pay the taxes needed to bring about any improvements. Maybe if they just redirected the military budget, we could solve most of these problems, but that seems unlikely in the current political climate.

[MMMMMM]

Utah: ""The ones who are upset about the deaths are the liberals in the U.S., not the Iraqis."

Chris Alger: "That's an unusually candid expression of the racist/imperialist mindset: the families of the civilians we kill aren't even "upset" about the deaths. Probably some sort of Muslim death wish thing."

Utah: "Faulty logic of course. The question is whether they would have supported the war before their love ones died. Easy to be upset when you draw the short straw.[/b]"

Sorry but I can't help commenting that faulty logic does seem to be a recurring theme in many of Alger's arguments. Chris often does a fine (albeit slanted) job of assembling facts to bear out his case, but faulty logic is all too often a (major) stumbling block.

Not to mention that Utah's comment objectively gave zero indication of a racist or imperial mindset.

[Taxman]

I apologize for any insult, I tend to get heated when I feel like I'm being attacked. Regardless I stand by my statements considering the legitimacy of the "ridiculous" statements. I still don't think that anyone who would debate a topic like this would hate America. I doubt he is plotting the downfall of the US or talks about how much our country sucks compared to the poverty and terrorist ridden middle eastern countries. Just because I exercise my right to criticize the current administration doesn't mean I hate the entire US governmental system. The same applies to anyone else. I would go so far as to say that it's anti-american to not voice objections you have concerning the elected government.

[MMMMMM]

"Just because I exercise my right to criticize the current administration doesn't mean I hate the entire US governmental system. The same applies to anyone else."

Yes, but when that's all one seems to do, it rather suggests something else. For instance Alger seems to always and only criticize the U.S. and Israel.

[adios]

"I can only hope that the perspective of history will reveal to those people, the big picture that they were missing during these last few years."

My post wasn't about what you want to cut in government spending it was about Kerry being disingenous.

"First off that sentence doesn't entirely make sense, but a clear objective of your post was to point out flaws in the democratic candidates, without balancing this with any similar comments on Bush. "

Huh? Kerry states that he can cut the budget deficit in half and I point out where what he, Kerry, proposes will increase the deficit by $265 billion to show how Kerry's being disingenous. Why are comments about Bush relevent to Kerry's being disingenous?

"If you're going to quote that extensively then you should include other relevant information."

Not sure what your point is here. Are you stating that the NTU study is erroneous? If so that should be easy to demonstrate.

"Questioning every thing I say without explicitly defining it is a weak way to argue."

I'm not questioning everything you say. To be quite honest I don't follow your reasoning very often. It's hard to disagree with someone's point of view when you're not really sure what is.

"I will try to be more specific, but you know what I meant by the model of either side (ie the economic policies). "

A model and a policy are two different things. You're asking way to much of me anyway to be able to discern your meaning when you play so fast and loose with terminology.

"You are the one obfuscating now, discrediting the vague parts of my arguments without making any actual arguments of your own."

I didn't discredit any of your arguements. I can't discredit something I don't know or understand.

"Similarly the answer I refer to is obviously meant as the "answer" to solving the economic problems of today."

It wasn't obvious to me at all what you were reffering to. What are the economic problems as you perceive them? Let's start there. Do you think it's at all possible that you and I might have different perceptions as to what the economic problems are?

"The importance of the difference between corporate and individual taxes is that corporations might be more able and more willing to utilize extra capital in a more constructive manner than individual billionaires. "

You're reffering to the amount of taxes paid I assume on a percentage basis and what I stated what constitutes taxable income. What are you specifically proposing here? Increases in the long term capital gains rate? More marginal tax brackets? Not a discredit to your post, just don't understand what you want.

"In your post you said, "wrong it's possible to modify all tax laws." Ok I'll give you this one (sorta), I was vague, but do you really think I'm dumb enough to think all laws can't be changed?"

You're someone I know nothing about and someone's posts aren't very clear to me as to what points you're addressing. It's not an excercise in putting you down, it's an excercise in trying to understand your points. Too bad you take it personally.

"I meant that a selective review of the type of taxes raised or lowered can be a useful and legitimate way of doing things as opposed to a unilateral decision of raising/lowering all taxes (or maybe this is done, but in a way to benefit only certain people. Yes, this is opinion, not fact)."

In my opinion that's in part what's behind all tax legislation.

"I'm not trying to refute the NTU model, I'm only doing what you are trying to do to me with your response, and that is cast a question over the ultimate truth provided by it."

I don't understand this statement. There's no NTU model (models have a very specific meaning to me) involved. Perhaps you mean the models used in the NTU study. I'm not trying to do anything to you. You responded to my post originally. If you have some data, studies, even models that shows Kerry will actually reduce the budget deficit with his proposals on spending I'd be highly interested in reading them.

""BTW the difficulty in defining taxable income for each and all categories of income earners is the reason the tax code is so complicated." I couldn't agree more. I know I just mentioned selective review under our current system, but ultimately I think the tax code is in dire need of extensive simplification."

Ok how do you propose doing that given the difficulties that you and I agree are inherent in defining income? This isn't a challenge or a put down. It's an inquirey as to what you ideas are.

"Also there's no need to make obtuse comments to my observations."

Like what?

"Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion and I was just stating mine."

Ok

"And yes, I do say so: criticism is an integral part of politics (unless you prefer the soviet Russia model)."

Ok and I don't

"History will tell (more about) how things really are now because that's how history works."

Ok, hard to argue with that one /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

"I'm not so vain as to claim I know what that will mean. I do know that there are far more people that want tax cuts because they want more money, than care about the environmental health and future of our planet."

Your assumption to me is that higher taxes necessarily means better environmental health and a better future for the planet. Am I right about your assumption?

"And then there's the people who complain to high heaven about the probles with public education, but refuse to pay the taxes needed to bring about any improvements."

Again your assumption seems to be that higher taxes will necessarily lead to a higher quality public educational system. Am I right about your assumption?

"Maybe if they just redirected the military budget, we could solve most of these problems, but that seems unlikely in the current political climate."

I've touched on the military budget in some posts about the budget about 6 or 7 months ago. IMO all aspects of the military budget are open to debate. Perhaps it would be time to do some sort of in depth post on that. If you look at defense expenditures in the Clinton administration you'll see that in normalized terms (normalized for GDP), defense expenditures had not been that low since post WWII. I might add I acknowledge that there's some justification for this given the end of Cold War (commonly called the peace dividend). For obvious reason defense spending has increased significantly in normalized terms under the Bush administration. However, in normalized terms it's not even close to a other periods (like WWII for instance). Don't get me wrong, the DoD still knows how to waste major money on pet projects etc. but what is need is scrutiny of the various programs on a strategic basis IMO. Here's something that I believe history has shown us, that Defense spending is controllable.

I've posted about this so many times I'm sure many are sick of it. If you want to reign in budget deficits, the problems with non-linear growth in Medicare/Medicaid spending (currently much higher than GDP growth) have to be rectified as well as what I call the structural flaw in Social Security. I've post about this before, the Clinton administration had a better record than anyone I can remember in controlling Medicare/Medicaid spending. Basically during the Clinton administration the growth in Medicaire/Medicaid outlays grew at a rate around GDP (I think slightly less). The "structural" problem with Social Security is this. The system is based on people who will be receiving benifits in the future paying for those who are eligible today. The "trust fund" is a total sham or accounting gimmick to put it more politely. Social Security is a regressive tax. The demographics of the baby boomers is such that unless something changes, the amount paid out will be much higher than what is paid in the retirement years of the baby boomers. Social Security is running at surplus now but it won't be in the not too distant future.

[adios]

Ah c'mon I'll bet you weren't and aren't crazy about the Viet Nam war either.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"Let me ask you, what if the president accurately estimated that Saddam would kill 20,000 of his own people if he did not invade. Would you then be in favor of the invasion?"

[/ QUOTE ]
If there was good evidence of imminent slaughter that could be prevented only by military action, then sure I would. But there were no such estimates or consideration of alternatives because humanitarian concerns had no chance of inviting intervention by the U.S., just as they had no chance of inviting it in Nigeria, Rwanda, Indonesia and other locales where masses were slaughtered, sometimes with U.S. arms and assistance. Although Kosovo is often cited to prove the opposite, the Clinton Administration also made it clear that U.S. policy was driven in part to strengthen NATO, meaning U.S. military control in Europe, it's original purpose having been exhausted.

In fact, the most likely scenario for a bloodbath in Iraq would have been in reaction to an uprising against Saddam's rule. This actually happened after the Gulf War and the U.S. record is clear: we preferred the bloodbath and keeping Saddam in power to the chance of a successful rebellion outside our control. In that case, we stood by and did nothing. Our troops watched as Saddam's henchmen marauded against civilians, slaughtering thousands. We actually gave Saddam's helicopters clearance to fly against "rebel" positions while refusing rebel access to arms captured from Saddam's forces.

This fact is well-known to informed observers, and was even the subject of a feature movie ("Three Kings"). Yet many Americans -- such as you, apparently -- have been so indoctrinated by propaganda that they are emotionally dependent on a conception of the U.S. as a force of moral goodness throughout the world, incapable of carrying out or facilitating bloodbaths when its interests, narrowly defined, so dictate. If a foreign dictator is replaced by a U.S. dictator then, by definition, that country has been "liberated," and things have turned from dark to light, something that only defenders of darkness could oppose.

According to a 1992 report by Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm), "U.S. occupation forces who were stationed only a few miles from al-Nasiriyya, Samawa and Basra did nothing to help the rebels who rose up in these cities. Soldiers watched helplessly as Iraqi troops devastated the cities, and wounded civilians fled on foot to U.S. bases nearby telling of the atrocities that were taking place. Thomas Isom, a U.S. Army lieutenant, described what he saw from his post at the edge of Samawa: <ul type="square"> They fired at the hospital twice. We were watching them shell the train station and other small houses. This was simply designed to kill civilians or terrorize them, which it did. It did not have a military purpose, just artillery impacts on large concentrations of civilians. [/list] An officer at the same post said of Iraq's Soviet-made H-18 helicopters that were firing rockets at Samawa residents: "We could have used our own helicopters to take them out. We could hear them come over our heads."

As the revolt gathered momentum, the U.S. emphasized that it had no intention of taking or even allowing military action to thwart Saddam. According to then Secretary of State James Baker: "we do not want to see any changes in the territorial integrity of Iraq and we do not want to see other countries actively making efforts to encourage changes." The New York Times reported that the Bush administration and its supporters held the "strikingly unanimous view [that] whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression." As supportive commentator Thomas Friedman observed at the time, the U.S. doesn't want popular rule in Iraq but rather a military coup to remove Saddam so that "Washington would have the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein," a return to the days when Saddam's "iron fist...held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia," and, of course, the U.S.

As Friedman implied, encouragement of Saddam was long-standing U.S. policy, dating back to days when the U.S. gave him lists of potential "subversives" so he could liquidate them, satellite intelligence so that he kill Iranians with poison gas, and WMD technology so that he could better position himself as a regional power in the service of U.S. interests, just as we have done for Pakistan and Israel. It was therefore no surprise at all when, according to HRW, "the [first] Bush Administration contributed to the making of a tragedy that left thousands of civilians massacred by Saddam's troops and nearly two million forced to flee their homes."

Now, of course, it's a different matter. Saddam's refusal to follow orders compelled his permanent isolation. 9/11 provided the pretext for the U.S. itself to wield the iron fist. A bitter dispute has arisen over nationwide elections, U.S. occupation forces siding, as usual, against democracy. This pretty good evidence of U.S. antipathy for Iraqi democracy is not being reported for what it is, of course, but rather the honest U.S. concern about a sacred timetable for "giving Iraq back to Iraqis," or some similar nonsense.

If a new Iraqi government with the U.S. seal of approval does the same, there isn't the slightest reason to suspect, much less assume, that the U.S. will do the right thing and oppose a bloodbath or other repression even if U.S. strategic and economic interests suffer. We'll likely pass the ammo while the self-satisfied U.S. "patriots" keep quiet unless someone has the bad taste to marshall evidence that impugns the presumed, unassailable nobility of U.S. motives ("America-bashing"). Just as we do for the dictator of Uzbekistan at this very moment without a peep of protest from the likes of you.

[Chris Alger]

What's wrong with that statement is the obvious omission: Iraq's support for "terrorists" has exclusively limited to the Israel-Palestine conflict, not those that "want to kill millions of Americans," and Iraq is ideologically at loggerheads with the sort of Islamicist fanatics that, as you say, want to kill "millions of Americans." In 30 years of power Saddam has never provided any support to such terrorists, despite having every means and ability to do so. Accordingly, Iraq's "support for terror" is no different from the position of virtually every other Arab country, including the ones we directly support, including Iraq when the U.S. was supporting Saddam, and cannot be considered by any sane person to be a threat to U.S. national security or a motivating factor in the war to overthrow Saddam.

Pakistan is ideologically committed to Islam, was the only country to recognize the Taliban, whom it helped bring to power, is governed by a repressive military dictatorship, has a record of aggression and mass killing of civilians, has nuclear WMD and a record of supporting terrorism that, if you ask anyone in the Indian government, continues to this day. If these facts applied to Iraq, you'd claim that only an idiot couldn't see them as the determinative facts that motivated the war. Yet the U.S. provides ample military, economic and diplomatic support for Pakistan, evidently comfortable with all of these facts, and proving that something other than the reasons Bush used to sell the war to the public were the real ones. Of course, this is usually the case when the leader of a country is trying to sell something as fundamentally unpopular as a war of aggression, but we can't conceive of it happening here.

[Chris Alger]

This is what Utah said just before the sentence I quoted, an example of what you call "making sense."

[ QUOTE ]
"Therefore, to call Bush a murderer is very misleading since the people who he supposedly murdered are happy that he undertook the action that caused their death."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it because when they get murdered by Bush they get all those virgins?

[MMMMMM]

To me it seems that Utah is trying to refer to Iraqis in general, not to those actually killed. Granted he didn't specify such (and his words could even mislead a few as to his meaning), but isn't it obvious from the context that this is what he is trying to say? He is talking about the viewpoint of the average Iraqi, not the viewpoint of the few who got killed...as this fits with his argument and the general theme.

In other words he is saying that calling Bush a murderer is misleading, because the average Iraqi was rather glad Bush did what had to be done in order to depose Saddam. He is also saying that the average Iraqi was not overly concerned about losing a relatively small number of Iraqis in order to be freed from Saddam's grip. Utah may have worded it fairly poorly in the cited instance but I think you will see what he meant if you think about it in the context of the thread.

[MMMMMM]

"
If there was good evidence of imminent slaughter that could be prevented only by military action, then sure I would. But there were no such estimates or consideration of alternatives because humanitarian concerns had no chance of inviting intervention by the U.S., just as they had no chance of inviting it in Nigeria, Rwanda, Indonesia and other locales where masses were slaughtered, sometimes with U.S. arms and assistance."

Chris: Here I think you are conflating two issues. Given the history of Saadam's Baathist thugs, I think it could be very fairly presumed that deposing Saddam would save Iraqi lives in the long run. That this was not the primary consideration of the U.S. regarding possible intervention is besides the point, although it is certainly another point worthy of exploration.

[Utah]

[Taxman]

Part of the problem with your arguments against me is that you seem to fail to realize that I am only doing what you are trying to do to me, that is, ask questions in order to get you to clarify your point. You say Kerry is disingenuous and then give evidence cited from a single source, something which would never hold up in a legitimate research study. Then when I question you, you try to turn my words against me by citing their ambiguity and claiming that I don't have sufficient sources myself. Well, I surrender! You're right, I have few sources because the point of my post was not to disprove anything, only to force you to illustrate why you, or the NTU is right, and other people are not. All politicians promise things that will not happen in exactly the way they say. Regardless of this, the deficit is monsterous right now and was monsterous under Reagan but was much lower under the Democratic presidents during the past few years. By policy, I meant the decision to follow a particular model. That should be clear enough for you to follow.

Whether or not we have different ideas concerning the economic problems of today is irrelevant, unless you believe that there are none. What is relevant is explaining why you think one side (republican, democrat, libertarian, whatever) is preferable to the other. Of course to this you might respond that you were merely pointing out that Kerry was being disingenuous, which as I said before is no news to me given that, such things have been prevelant in all political campaigns I have observed. If this is your only point, then no further discussion is needed.

Yes I agree that in theory all tax legislation tries to look at which things can and should be cut, but as the disproportionate cuts received by the ultra rich during the Reagan administration in particular demonstrate, just because they are looking at which specific taxes to cut doesn't mean they are doing so with an eye for the best interests of the country. As far as corporate taxes are concerned, I think that perhaps those are the ones that would be best to lower, though manufacturing regulations deffinately need to be raised. This is all abstract opinion of course, but nobody has given me a good reason to consider otherwise. Concerning education and the environment, no I was not saying that tax hikes will inevitably lead to improvements in those areas. If I meant that I would say that. I meant exactly what I said. If that was not clear enough for you, I will rephrase: People want better education and a cleaner environment, but they are unwilling to pay taxes specifically levied towards those ends. Of course ultimately I believe that cutting other things like the military budget would be an even better solution. If we took half of the budget allocated to that ridiculous star wars program, we could develop the best education system the world has ever seen. If we eliminated huge chunks of the military budget, we would still posses enough power to destroy the world several times over. I'm not talking about the specific expense involved with going to war, but rather the amount of money spent just building weapons that we will likely never use (at least I damn well hope we don't).

You begged the question concerning you backing up your post when I said, "I'm not trying to refute the NTU model, I'm only doing what you are trying to do to me with your response, and that is cast a question over the ultimate truth provided by it." Since I have now directly established my intent of not trying to disprove it directly, I ask you to answer the question posed.

I have a hard time believing that you don't give credit to the idea that criticism is an integral part of politics. Perhaps I should specify that I mean US politics. After all, isn't that what the NTU is doing? Isn't that what makes a democracy (or a republic) work? If we are discouraged from criticizing then we are being censored and that is certainly not the American way (no matter how much Bush and friends would have you believe otherwise).

I do agree with your statements concerning social security and medicare. They also show that I was misunderstanding some of your stances as well. I apologize if I came off as too combative, but I would also recommend that you refrain from flippant responses like "everyone's entitled to their opinion" or "if you say so." I think ultimately the lack of understanding you exhibit concerning my comments stems from the fact that they are not necessarily trying to make a specific point as much as ask for a clarification of yours. I am posing a few vague ideas becasue I readily admit that my knowledge in this particular area is limited. If I came off as otherwise, I apologize again as sometimes I tend to get too forceful witha half formed opinion. Nevertheless, like I said in an earlier response to another of your long winded dissections of my posts (to which you did not respond), you have not yet proven that you are the one we should listen to. If that is not your aim, more power to you. I was simply exercising my right to question that which I do not believe.

[Utah]

If there was good evidence of imminent slaughter that could be prevented only by military action, then sure I would.

Good. My argument has been more with your logic than with your stance. We can agree then that the equation takes the form of A-B+X (e.g., Lives saved+lives losts+other variables such as quality of life). I dont think you can say either 8,000 died or that a people were freed without considering the flip side.

Yet many Americans -- such as you, apparently -- have been so indoctrinated by propaganda that they are emotionally dependent on a conception of the U.S. as a force of moral goodness throughout the world

Twice now in this thread you have made comments similiar to this. Since you keep making the comment I will keep saying the response. Hopefully, we can avoid this stupid dance in the future. I have said that morality doesn't come into play and it is worthless to discuss. There are simply competing interests. If you operate on the assumption that the U.S. is operating purely out of its own interests then the U.S. policies from a high level are amazingly consistent, if not often (usually) wrong in the actual execution of carrying out these policies.

[adios]

"Part of the problem with your arguments against me is that you seem to fail to realize that I am only doing what you are trying to do to me, that is, ask questions in order to get you to clarify your point."

I don't have any arguements against you. You keep writing stuff like this in your posts and I haven't the foggiest idea what you're referring to.

"You say Kerry is disingenuous and then give evidence cited from a single source, something which would never hold up in a legitimate research study."

Why not? Do you think the NTU study is illegitimate?

"Then when I question you, you try to turn my words against me by citing their ambiguity and claiming that I don't have sufficient sources myself. Well, I surrender!"

Again I'm not trying to turn your words against you. I don't how you make that conclusion. If you have info on how Kerry will lower the budget deficit I sincerely would be happy to see the info. That would be much appreciated.

" You're right, I have few sources because the point of my post was not to disprove anything, only to force you to illustrate why you, or the NTU is right, and other people are not. "

The easiest way to refute something is show that it's not true. That's all you have to do to refute my information source.

"Regardless of this, the deficit is monsterous right now and was monsterous under Reagan but was much lower under the Democratic presidents during the past few years."

I've posted about the reasons for this before. If your interested I believe they were made in July of 2003.

"By policy, I meant the decision to follow a particular model. That should be clear enough for you to follow."

Well ok I think.

"Whether or not we have different ideas concerning the economic problems of today is irrelevant, unless you believe that there are none."

You seem to be saying that what the economic problems are supposed to be are well known and common knowledge. Why wouldn't different people have different opinions and thoughts as to what they consist of? I disagree with your statement.

" What is relevant is explaining why you think one side (republican, democrat, libertarian, whatever) is preferable to the other."

Not necessarily if we perceive what the economic problems are differently.

"Of course to this you might respond that you were merely pointing out that Kerry was being disingenuous, which as I said before is no news to me given that, such things have been prevelant in all political campaigns I have observed. "

So the original post by Andy knocking the Bush administration for being disingenuous is pointing out a characteristic of most political candidates and their respective campaigns. No news there. Happens with both Democrats and Republicans. Ok.

"If this is your only point, then no further discussion is needed."

I should probably stop here because that is my point. However, we've migrated to other issues regarding taxes and the budget.

"Yes I agree that in theory all tax legislation tries to look at which things can and should be cut, but as the disproportionate cuts received by the ultra rich during the Reagan administration in particular demonstrate, just because they are looking at which specific taxes to cut doesn't mean they are doing so with an eye for the best interests of the country."

What's your definition of disproportionate? What should the marginal tax brackets be? What tax structure would be in the best interests of the country? What in your opinion are the best interests of this country?

"As far as corporate taxes are concerned, I think that perhaps those are the ones that would be best to lower, though manufacturing regulations deffinately need to be raised."

Ok but I doubt if manufacturing regulations need to be more stringent (I assume this is what you mean by raised). Did you have any specific regulations in mind?

"This is all abstract opinion of course, but nobody has given me a good reason to consider otherwise."

I would think more regulation would lead to higher production costs which would lead to less competitive prices in the world markets. The US manufacturing sector is just now coming out of a long downturn.

"Concerning education and the environment, no I was not saying that tax hikes will inevitably lead to improvements in those areas. If I meant that I would say that. I meant exactly what I said. If that was not clear enough for you, I will rephrase: People want better education and a cleaner environment, but they are unwilling to pay taxes specifically levied towards those ends. "

Let me put it another way. Why would you want to raise taxes and spend more money on education and the environment if the quality of education wasn't enhanced and/or the quality of the environment wasn't improved?

" Of course ultimately I believe that cutting other things like the military budget would be an even better solution."

I assume you mean a better solution than raising taxes. Ok as I mentioned in my previous post that discussing the military budget is probably worthwhile.

"If we took half of the budget allocated to that ridiculous star wars program, we could develop the best education system the world has ever seen."

Could be wrong but I don't think Star Wars is being pursued. Went out with the end of the cold war. But you seem to be assuming that more government expenditures means higher quality education. What is the best education system the world has ever seen btw?


"If we eliminated huge chunks of the military budget, we would still posses enough power to destroy the world several times over."

Ok. I can tell you uncategorically that the US was more than happy to dismantle obsolete nuclear weapons as a result of the ending of the cold war. I worked on dismantlement in the 90's so I know of what I speak. I think at some point it's worth discussing US defense strategy so your point is duly noted.

"I'm not talking about the specific expense involved with going to war, but rather the amount of money spent just building weapons that we will likely never use (at least I damn well hope we don't)."

Actually I agree with you. If we never intend to use certain weapons under any circumstances we should get rid of them.

"I have a hard time believing that you don't give credit to the idea that criticism is an integral part of politics."


Sure just as much as being disingenous :).

"Perhaps I should specify that I mean US politics. After all, isn't that what the NTU is doing?"

Yep.

" Isn't that what makes a democracy (or a republic) work?"

In part.

"If we are discouraged from criticizing then we are being censored and that is certainly not the American way (no matter how much Bush and friends would have you believe otherwise)."

I'm not discouraging anyone from cricizing. Andy's post seemed to me to be stating that the Democrats had the high ground as far as honesty was concerned which I certainly don't believe to be the case. I don't buy the arguement that Bush wants to stifle dissent.

"I do agree with your statements concerning social security and medicare."

Ok

" They also show that I was misunderstanding some of your stances as well."

Ok

"I apologize if I came off as too combative, but I would also recommend that you refrain from flippant responses like "everyone's entitled to their opinion" or "if you say so.""

No need to apologize as I've found these posts to be a worthwhile exchange. Not being flippant but if I don't understand and/or don't agree but I think your point is probably irrelevant I'll make the responses your referring to. Don't take it personally please.


"I think ultimately the lack of understanding you exhibit concerning my comments stems from the fact that they are not necessarily trying to make a specific point as much as ask for a clarification of yours. I am posing a few vague ideas becasue I readily admit that my knowledge in this particular area is limited."

You seem like a very thoughtful and intelligent person so this statement surprises me a little. No offense but personally I think you've been "brainwashed" into the thinking that bigger government (higher taxes and more government spending) is the solution to all economic problems at least (probably all problems). Obviously I disagree with this viewpoint as do many others. Again no offense and if I'm perceiving you wrongly please let me know.

"I apologize again as sometimes I tend to get too forceful witha half formed opinion. "

Ok, no need to apologize.

"Nevertheless, like I said in an earlier response to another of your long winded dissections of my posts (to which you did not respond), you have not yet proven that you are the one we should listen to. "

There's only so much time in a day. Everyone has their own definition of long winded :).

" I was simply exercising my right to question that which I do not believe."

Ok.

[adios]

Unbelievable how two faced this guy is, untrustworthy and probably expensive.

From an op ed piece to day in the WSJ:

Conduct Unbecoming (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004604)

Conduct Unbecoming
Kerry doesn't deserve Vietnam vets' support.

BY STEPHEN SHERMAN
Monday, January 26, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

A turning point may have been reached in the Iowa caucuses when Special Forces Lt. James Rassmann came forward to thank John Kerry for saving his life in Vietnam. Although Mr. Rassmann, like most of my veteran friends, is a Republican, he said that he'd vote for Mr. Kerry. I don't know if the incident influenced the caucus results. But I took special interest in the story because Jim served in my unit.

Service in Vietnam is an important credential to me. Many felt that such service was beneath them, and removed themselves from the manpower pool. That Mr. Kerry served at all is a reason for a bond with fellow veterans; that his service earned him a Bronze Star for Valor ("for personal bravery") and a Silver Star ("for gallantry") is even more compelling. Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one state George McGovern carried in 1972. He joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and emceed the Winter Soldier Investigation (both financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the people on whose behalf the protests were ostensibly being undertaken. But being a take-charge kind of guy, Mr. Kerry became a leader in the VVAW and even testified before Congress on the findings of the Investigation, which he accepted at face value.

In his book "Stolen Valor," B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have committed. Mr. Kerry later threw what he represented as his awards at the Capitol in protest. But as the war diminished as a political issue, he left the VVAW, which was a bit too radical for his political future, and was ultimately elected to the Senate. After his awards were seen framed on his office wall, he claimed to have thrown away someone else's medals--so now he can reclaim his gallantry in Vietnam.

Mr. Kerry hasn't given me any reason to trust his judgment. As co-chairman of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a revealing inquiry into the POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade initiatives with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while blocking any legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic human rights. I'm not surprised that there are veterans who support a VVAW activist, if only because there are so few fellow veterans in politics. Ideally, there'd be many more. If you are going to vote on military appropriations, it would be nice if you didn't disrespect the soldiers. Congress hasn't had the courage to declare war in more than 60 years, despite numerous instances in which we have sent our military in harm's way. Of all the "lessons of Vietnam," surely one is that America needs a leader capable of demonstrating in himself, and encouraging in others, the resolve to finish what they have collectively started.

But the bond between veterans has to be tempered in light of the individual's record. Just as Mr. Kerry threw away medals only to claim them back again, Sen. Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but claims to take that vote back by voting against funding the result. So I can understand my former comrade-in-arms hugging the man who saved his life, but not the act of choosing him for president out of gratitude. And I would hate to see anyone giving Mr. Kerry a sympathy vote for president just because being a Vietnam veteran is "back in style."


Mr. Sherman was a first lieutenant with the U.S. Army Fifth Special Forces Group (Airborne) in Vietnam, 1967-68.

[Chris Alger]

It might be fair to criticize Kerry for capitalizing on his experience in a war that he claims should not have been fought, but it depends on whether Kerry is ambiguous about the meaning of his service.

The rest of this junk is the usual tired right-wing nonsense about Vietnam being a glorious enterprise. "Many veteran believe," says Sherman, defining his comments as meaningless, that opponents of the war caused the "enslavement" of Vietnam and the deaths of G.I.'s. As usual, no mention of U.S. efforts to thwart national elections in the 1950's, no suggestion that the people who actually sent and supported sending G.I.'s to Vietnam bear any responsibility for their fate. He even criticizes Kerry for being from Massachusetts! ("Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one state George McGovern carried in 1972."). As in, "Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry is white, white people being the ones responsible for ....

It's on par with the white house aid comment to the NY Times that Kerry is unappealing because he "looks French."

It's people like Sherman, and not Kerry, who give veterans an undeserved reputation for being dumb guy apologists of the criminal act of imperialist aggression we call the war in Vietnam.

[Taxman]

Alright adios, I'll admit that you have gained my respect (an incredible honor to be sure /images/graemlins/smirk.gif). As for your post...

I didn't mean to say that the NTU study was illegitimate, just that it was only one study by one group with a specific agenda. I don't actually know how Kerry will lower the deficit because I'm too lazy to research it (be gentle on me for that admission!) but I do not doubt that he would spend less than Bush simply because his party and those who would vote for him demand it. Like I said, I'm not trying to refute the NTU study directly, I just want perhaps some analysis by yourself why you think it is true. I'm sure if I were to read everything they had to offer more carefully I probably would agree with some of it. If it's a coincidence that spending was so high during Reagan/Bush then it's a big one, especially given the widespread domestic and international concern of the current president's budget. I was not rrying to say that evryone should recognize some sort of common economic troubles, I merely meant that differing opinions was irrelevant to what I was saying earlier in the post (that I want to know why you support your particular view over others). I suppose that this is an incomplete argument and thinking on it, individual views of course are still important, just not as far as me asking you to explain your one view.

"So the original post by Andy knocking the Bush administration for being disingenuous is pointing out a characteristic of most political candidates and their respective campaigns. No news there. Happens with both Democrats and Republicans. Ok."

I did not recall that part of the post, so I didn't understand that purpose in your argument (I read your response long after reading the original post). These threads can get so crazy I forget what's been said at times. Ok, so I understand the purpose of your post.

"Ok but I doubt if manufacturing regulations need to be more stringent (I assume this is what you mean by raised). Did you have any specific regulations in mind?"

I do indeed. A simple example is this: remember the geo metro? That car got around 60 miles per gallon and cost maybe $7000. Now that car has been discontinued and we have these amazing hybrid cars that get...60 miles per gallon all for the low price of $20000. The point of this observation is that car pollution and the increasing cost of oil are both clear problems. If the auto industry could build non-hybrid cars getting 60 miles per gallon 20 years ago, it's strange that they can't do better today (of course they actually can). Thus the government should require better gas milage averages for cars out of the auto industries (this can be applied to foreign cars as well). Another example might be the lax regulation of pollution laws for certain companies (as found by the famous Erin Brokavich (don't know the spelling) and others). I have a few other examples, but I'll have to drudge them up from the back of my brain some other time. Increased regulations would likely raise manufacturing costs, but it would also account for the fact that there is a future for this planet. Constantly taking extra profit over environmental safety (or other forms of safety) is short-sighted and ultimately self destructive. Also the US currenty purchases the "pollution quotas" of underdeveloped countries so that we can pollute more than we are technically allowed from the Rio Earth Summit. If we took care of things on our end, this money could be used more constructively and our planet might survive a little longer with us still on it.

Who's to say that raising taxes for environmental and educational programs wouldn't improve them? If it didn't, I would serious question the motives of those in charge of that money. I don't know what the best educational system the world has ever seen is, but possibly excepting the universities, it probably isn't the one found in the US. Most of our gradeschools and highschools are woefully underbudgeted and staffed by a mix of good and bad teachers because only some of the best teachers are willing to go into a profession that offers them so little. I myself might be mistaken, but I thought I read that Bush had ressurected the star wars program which had indeed been defunct. Also while on the topic of US defence strategy I know from a few sources that at one point the Russians offered to dismantle all of their nuclear weapons if we did the same. We rejected their offer. This may have been one of the larger mistakes in history (a purely subjective opinion of course). I would provide better dates and names, but it's been a while. I am positive of this offer however.

"Andy's post seemed to me to be stating that the Democrats had the high ground as far as honesty was concerned which I certainly don't believe to be the case. I don't buy the arguement that Bush wants to stifle dissent."

I won't comment on Andy's intent but this is something that I did not consider when responding to your posts, just to clarify. I do think that Bush does look to stifle dissent to some extent however. Members of his administration have repeatedly questioned the patriotism of various members of congress that have opposed the president's plan in Iraq. Of course Bush may or may not be the actual reason behind this. The Democrats are still that other side of the smae coin however and I won't claim they occupy some moral high ground (some do, but then so do some Republicans).

"Not being flippant but if I don't understand and/or don't agree but I think your point is probably irrelevant I'll make the responses your referring to. Don't take it personally please."

Noted.

"You seem like a very thoughtful and intelligent person so this statement surprises me a little. No offense but personally I think you've been "brainwashed" into the thinking that bigger government (higher taxes and more government spending) is the solution to all economic problems at least (probably all problems). Obviously I disagree with this viewpoint as do many others. Again no offense and if I'm perceiving you wrongly please let me know."

I can understand why you might interpret things this way but this is not the case. I appreciate the compliment and I might say the same of you. I mention my lack of knowledge not necessarily because I know little or nothing but because I try hard to avoid being someone (like some on this forum) who pushes his views without any sound backing for them. I do actually consider myself fairly well informed. My main problem is that I read a lot, but I tend to forget the sources for the various things I read. I might have seen an article in The Economist that mentioned something I bring up here, but because I can't remember that source I am reserved about acting like a know-it-all. I also have a fair amount of theoretical knowledge (I am a college student after all), but some of the particular workings of things are a little foggy to me. This varies widely depending on the subject. Also, there is my inherent laziness which sometimes prevents me from verifying some of my sources (This is a failing, I know).

As far as being "brainwashed" I can assure you that this is not true. I am not just another undergraduate left wing automaton. I would consider myself a moderate in many ways, though I am largely socially liberal (I do have some immigaration issues but that's for another discussion). I actually am in favor of an overall lowering of taxes (in a responsible manner), but it is my belief that government spending can be widely curtailed, allowing things like education and the environment to get their due even with lower taxes. I am not in favor of the fairly reckless manner that tax cuts seem to be given. I don't get the feeling that these things are thought out too well and I do get the feeling that they are slanted in favor of the rich (this is unsubstantiated at the moment of course). Randomly cutting taxes to encourage spending is not particularly impressive to me. A major reform of the tax system that lowered taxes but also increased the efficiency and clarity of the system, combined with a major overhaul of the national budget (while I'm wishing) would be far better. Of course, some taxes are still necessary because most individuals can't afford pay for things like law enforcement or fire fighters or public roads, themselves. I don't think that huge taxes and public everything is the best system. It can work well in a booming economy, but it tends to fail in times of depression.

[Chris Alger]

"the average Iraqi was rather glad Bush did what had to be done in order to depose Saddam. He is also saying that the average Iraqi was not overly concerned about losing a relatively small number of Iraqis in order to be freed from Saddam's grip"

Yeah, and where's the poll about "Saddam's grip" as opposed to "Saddam's sanctions" being lifted? His suggestion that the "average" Iraqi should simply ignore the third or so that actually rooted for Saddam, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of war victims is nearly as nonsensical. It's like asking how many Americans were injured on 9/11, and when 99% say ?no" concluding that it couldn't have been a very big deal.

[adios]

"It might be fair to criticize Kerry for capitalizing on his experience in a war that he claims should not have been fought, but it depends on whether Kerry is ambiguous about the meaning of his service."

He seems to be IMO.

"The rest of this junk is the usual tired right-wing nonsense about Vietnam being a glorious enterprise."

No I don't agree.

""Many veteran believe," says Sherman, defining his comments as meaningless, that opponents of the war caused the "enslavement" of Vietnam and the deaths of G.I.'s. As usual, no mention of U.S. efforts to thwart national elections in the 1950's, no suggestion that the people who actually sent and supported sending G.I.'s to Vietnam bear any responsibility for their fate."

You make a valid point here IMO. I thought it was weak as well. I will say that those such as jokerswild who trash Bush for ducking Nam are lineing up with Sherman IMO.

"He even criticizes Kerry for being from Massachusetts! ("Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one state George McGovern carried in 1972."). As in, "Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry is white, white people being the ones responsible for .... "

I thought this was lame as well.

"It's on par with the white house aid comment to the NY Times that Kerry is unappealing because he "looks French." "

The NY Times is a disgrace. Who wrote that for the Times, Jason Blair?

"It's people like Sherman, and not Kerry, who give veterans an undeserved reputation for being dumb guy apologists of the criminal act of imperialist aggression we call the war in Vietnam."

Some of Sherman's points are lame but I don't think this one is:

In his book "Stolen Valor," B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have committed.

nor this one:

Mr. Kerry later threw what he represented as his awards at the Capitol in protest. But as the war diminished as a political issue, he left the VVAW, which was a bit too radical for his political future, and was ultimately elected to the Senate. After his awards were seen framed on his office wall, he claimed to have thrown away someone else's medals--so now he can reclaim his gallantry in Vietnam.

nor this one:

As co-chairman of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a revealing inquiry into the POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade initiatives with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while blocking any legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic human rights.

nor this one:

But the bond between veterans has to be tempered in light of the individual's record. Just as Mr. Kerry threw away medals only to claim them back again, Sen. Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but claims to take that vote back by voting against funding the result.

[adios]

[MMMMMM]

"hundreds of thousands if not millions of war victims"???

--not this time around, you are surely delusional Chris.

[andyfox]

"Andy's post seemed to me to be stating that the Democrats had the high ground as far as honesty was concerned"

It wasn't; if it seemed that way, I didn't write it correctly. When Democrats are in power, they lie and distort and cheat too (see Clinton; see Johnson; see Kennedy). Especially when they're going to war or using the military short of war.

[jokerswild]

The only deserter ever appointed President. Court Martial proceedings began, but becuase some guy named George Herbert Walker Bush intervened, the coward was allowed to exit the military without prison time.

You sure idolize men with character.

[jokerswild]

Counting refugees, imprisoned, killed, and unemployed, it is large.

The Nazi's stated that the Pols terrorized German citizens in Danzig. Many millions of ghosts are still searching for those terrorist Pols.

You are a fascist. This has been clear for some time. The fact is that Cheney, Rumsfeld, King George I, and the whole crowd running this military industrial complex made and supported Saddam financially for years.

[BillUCF]

We have not found the WMD yet. It is possible we never will, but it does not matter. Saddam Hussein had to go. He mass murdered hundreds of thousands of people. I was in the first gulf war and knew we should have taken Saddam out then. Even Bill Clinton knew Saddam had WMD. Saddam violated over a dozen UN resolutions concerning the WMD. Anyone who opposes this war CONDONES the mass murders by Saddam. All democrats who speak out against the war are using the lack of WMD evidence to further their own political stand and it is a vile stance to take. Anyone who opposes the war is putting political ambitions over the fact we captured a mass murderer on the level of Hitler and Pol Pot. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore were president we would be in the same situation. Don't forget your history. Goldwater ran against Johnson in the 1968 election. Goldwater(R) campaigned admitting we will remain in Vietnam and fight for freedom and it cost him the election to Johnson(D) who vowed to get out of Vietnam within a year. Johnson lost to Nixon in 1972 because he could not deliver on that promise. John Kerry's opposition to the war demonstrates his lack of understanding of the issue, and he will get a rude awakening if elected to office.

[Chris Alger]

Not if you define a war victim as someone who has suffered as a result of the war. There have been 9,000 U.S. casualties alone; between 8-10,000 Iraqi civilians killed, at least 4 times that many injured or with property damage, with the numbers going up all the time, thanks in part to anti-U.S. resistance/terror, thanks in part to cluster bombs and U.S. retalliation. The direct victims of this war and their grieving family members number at least a quarter million and will likely exceed a million before its "over," if it ever truly is.

[MMMMMM]

"You are a fascist. This has been clear for some time."

jokerswild, this post shows you do not understand the difference betwen a fascist and an anti-fascist.

[MMMMMM]

By "war victims" I thought you meant casualties.

Anyway, if you are going to count "those who have suffered as a result of the war", then you also have to count "those who would have suffered as a result of the continuation of Saddam's regime". I doubt you could make an argument as to why the first should be necessarily greater than the second.

[adios]

"We have not found the WMD yet. It is possible we never will, but it does not matter."

Yep I agree.

"Saddam Hussein had to go. He mass murdered hundreds of thousands of people."

Yep there's a lot of blood on his regime's hands.

"I was in the first gulf war and knew we should have taken Saddam out then."

Yep another failure that can be laid right on the doorstep of the UN, that organization that's been hijacked by third world dictatorships. George Herbert Walker Bush received universal praise for his cooperation with the UN which history has shown to be a major mistake IMO. Beware when opinion is so one sided.

"Anyone who opposes this war CONDONES the mass murders by Saddam."

Basically yes IMO but you should get the counter arguements from the leftists on this forum soon. Stay tuned and enjoy.

"All democrats who speak out against the war are using the lack of WMD evidence to further their own political stand and it is a vile stance to take."

Not necessarily all but a significant number and yes I agree that many Democrats want to only further a political agenda and it has little or nothing to do with principled opposition.

"Anyone who opposes the war is putting political ambitions over the fact we captured a mass murderer on the level of Hitler and Pol Pot."

That's open to debate but we don't know given the opportunity what evil he was capable of. Saddam's record speaks for itself as far as being evil.

"If Bill Clinton or Al Gore were president we would be in the same situation."

I don't agree. They would have done basically nothing in response to 9/11. We can get a good idea of what Clinton would have done about 9/11 by how he responed to terrorist activities directed at the US. IMO terrorists like al Qaeda were emboldened by Clinton responses to their terrorist activities.

"Goldwater ran against Johnson in the 1968 election."

Nope it was the 64 election.

"Goldwater(R) campaigned admitting we will remain in Vietnam and fight for freedom and it cost him the election to Johnson(D) who vowed to get out of Vietnam within a year."

Goldwater bascially said either fight this war to win it including invading North Viet Nam or get the hell out.

"Johnson lost to Nixon in 1972 because he could not deliver on that promise."

Actually Johnson was embarrased by anti war candidate Eugene McCarthy in 1968 in the New Hampshire primary and saw the hand writing on the wall. His vice president, Hubert Humphrey, lost in 1968 to Nixon.

"John Kerry's opposition to the war demonstrates his lack of understanding of the issue, and he will get a rude awakening if elected to office."

IMO Kerry's flipped flopped on Iraq. He voted for the resolution and voted against funding the money to support support the military operations in Iraq. Edwards did the same thing. They've put their finger in the political wind so to speak, saw which way the wind was blowing within their party and are pandering to get the nomination. If Kerry gets the nomination look for more pandering and obfuscation to try and sway more moderate voters by seemingly moving to more central position. Kerry's the epitome of flip flopping.

[Cyrus]

"I am not sure if it is the humorous backwards logic that I enjoy the most or the always original titles."

I think it's the always backwards titles.



Seriously, the results-oriented attitude of the American administration has nothing to do with option pricing models or expectation/variance optimisation! (You are giving those guys way too much credit!)

What I objected to was you attitude (echoed by the attitude of Rummy &amp; Co.) that, since we got rid of Saddam, well, surely that means the war was a success! And [rising voice volume] why the hell are we not rejoicing that a brutal dictator such as Saddam has fallen? HMMMMMM?!

Which is, of course, completely erroneous thinking. This is like hitting your 19v7 in Blackjack (having no additional information) or like playing aggressively all your A9o in hold'em (having no qualifiers to that "strategy"). When you are dealt a 2 in BJ or you win a big pot in HE, that doesn't mean that the strategy was correct. And when you say somet

"Regardless of whether we should have went to war, it certainly seems to have helped in the global war on terrorism"

I'm sorry but that's voodoo. And I hope you can see it for the voodoo it is. A superpower that conducts geopolitical strategy "hoping for the best" and going into war without planning diligently ahead is a bad, bad omen.

--Cyrus

PS : I recall statements of past NSC "theoreticians" to the effect that actually America should strive to appear as reckless and unpredictable and a little crazy! This way, America's opponent --the USSR-- would be extra careful not to antagonize that "live wire" too much. Total buffoonery!f You don't need "Game Theory cubes" to see the absurdity of such an approach, an approach that hinges solely on the premise that the other side craves peace so much that it will allow the "village idiot" to do as he pleases.

[andyfox]

You're conflating two different issues.

If Saddam Hussein was indeed a mass murderer, we have those murders on our hands, having helped him into power, having supplied him with the weaponry and transportaion to use chemical and biological weapons on both the Iranis and the Kureds. Our ambassador gave him an "OK" to go into Kuwait.

The Bush administration stated that he was a threat to us because he had ties to terrorists, including al Qaeda and the 9/11 culprits, and because he had WMDs. The Bush administration only talked about his bad bahvior towards his own people when its other arguments were analyzed for what they were: borderline specious.

Opposing the war was not the same thing as condoning Hussein's murders. We did not go to war against Stalin; did Truman and Eisenhower condone Stalin's mufderous policies? We did not go to war against Mao's China; in fact Nixon made buddy-buddy with Mao; did he condone his policies? If Hussein had to go, there were plenty of ways to get rid of him short of war. We've gotten rid of many tyrants (and supposed tyrants) through other means.

Goldwater did so poorly in the election of 1964 because he was widely viewed as a wild reactionary who would get us into a major war in Vietnam. Johnson lied about his plans for Vietnam. Johnson did not lose to Nixon in 1972; had he run, he would have won reeelection.

I agree that either Clinton or Gore would have reacted to 9/11 with an attack on Afghanistanand the Taliban who were harboring Bin Laden, who was responsible for 9/11. Clinton in particular had a hard-on (bad choice of terms, for him, I know) for Bin Laden. But I doubt they would have gone to war in Iraq. There are many people in the Bush administration who had been calling for war against Hussein for many years. Plus there was the unfinished first Bush war against Hussein and Hussein's alledged attempted assassination of Bush 41. And a general feeling among the more hard-line types in the Bush administration that we needed to kick some ass. All of these things factored into the decision to go to war. I am unsure, but doubtful, that there would have been the same solution to the Hussein problem had the Democrats been in office.

[MMMMMM]

"If Hussein had to go, there were plenty of ways to get rid of him short of war."

Baloney.

[adios]

HAL is up around 50% since you recommended it. Paying a nice dividend too. I think it's going much higher.

[Taxman]

I was quoting adios when I mentioned the honesty "high ground" and I stated no opinion myself about that matter. I'm writing this because it looks like you were responding to my post. I do agree with you about the lies all around the whitehouse.

[detox]

What the pundits keep missing is this:

There never was SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE and RISK for Clinton, the rest of the world (British modern day crusader nuts don't count), the UN, OriginalBush, etc. TO INVADE.

There is always risk, that's what the inspectors and sanctions were for. The decision to invade never had anything to do with risk, not even for Shrub or Cheney strong arming CIA analysts.

It was an EXCUSE. Nothing more.

[Utah]

Seriously, the results-oriented attitude of the American administration has nothing to do with option pricing models or expectation/variance optimisation! (You are giving those guys way too much credit!)

They don't neccessarily need to know. They simply need to understand things at a higher strategic level with the quantitative overview. I used to tell Senior Management of Target Corp. whether they should spend $25 million building a new department store or to close a department store. I did some very complex analysis that used option pricing theory that often combined a Put and a Call option. However, senior management didn't need to know this. They only needed to understand the net value and cash flows, strategic elements, and risk. The fact that they didn't understand the option pricing in no way made them idiots as they had no need to know. Maybe most importantly, they needed to trust me and my numbers. I think this is parallel to the intelligence community. Bush doesn't need to work out the complex game theory or optimization models- but he sure as hell needs to trust the people that do.

What I objected to was you attitude (echoed by the attitude of Rummy &amp; Co.) that, since we got rid of Saddam, well, surely that means the war was a success!

When did I ever say anything about Saddam? You are Alger might want to make a few tinfoil hats to keep out the voices /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

I'm sorry but that's voodoo. And I hope you can see it for the voodoo it is. A superpower that conducts geopolitical strategy "hoping for the best" and going into war without planning diligently ahead is a bad, bad omen

I was answering a specific point and I made no attempt at a grand justification of war. The original poster said the money was wasted. I simply said that I don't think it was, and I even qualified my statement twice. No vodoo here.

Total buffoonery!f You don't need "Game Theory cubes" to see the absurdity of such an approach, an approach that hinges solely on the premise that the other side craves peace so much that it will allow the "village idiot" to do as he pleases.

Please tell me why you think it is absurd?

Simple math really. I posted this somewhere else recently, but I dont remember where.

Lets say you are playing a game of Chicken:
You have two choices - chicken out or not
The other player has the same choices
You really would like to win, but you really dont mind chickening out, as all you lose is a little pride
However, what you really dont want is Splat!
You see the other driver get into his car down a bottle of Everclear and put on a blindfold
What do you do?

The irrational player has an edge. The defense of course to all this is to act irrational yourself. Under your premise, you are assuming that the USSR craves peace more and will always cave. However, lets say the craving for peace is equal. And lets say that the Russians are not so willing to give in. in fact, lets say that they decide to play the irrational player as well. Now, you have a situation! We saw this play out in Cuba.

You can call it absurd all you want, but the game exists in reality - it is unavoidable. Example, you don't see N. Korea playing this game? By being irrational, or making the world perceive them as irrational, N.Korea has greatly strengthened its position - i.e., ("Dang, that mother just might be crazy enough to blow the crap out of S. Korea. We better be careful."


As I have recommended to other, Read "Prisioners Dilemma" which is a great primer on this line of thinking.

[detox]

Yes, they're back at it again. Same old whining and bitching without any regard to the new realities of Liberated Iraq. The fact that you all want to disregard is that both the United States and Iraq are better off now than they were before the war. The war was a complete success! And those who try to deny it, like Howard Dean proclaiming we're no safer today, are forever doomed to be the laughingstock of the sane and rational. It's over folks, the war was a good thing, which is why all the Democrats except for dead Dean either voted in favor of the war, or were supportive of the war in the past. How extremist are you if your own party favors the war?

[elwoodblues]

Just because both Iraq and the US are better off after the war (and that point is debatable) does not mean that the war was a complete success nor that it was justified in the first place. There are a lot of countries that would probably be better off if we overthrew their government and tried to establish democracy...that doesn't mean that war against those countries is justified.

You are being too results-oriented...poker players should know better.